BX 9841 
.A4 

Copy 1 



A 

VINDICATION 

OF THE 

UNITARIAN DOCTRINE 

CONCERNING THE 

SOLE DEITY OF THE GOD AND FATHER OF OUR 
LORD JESUS CHRIST : 

BEING 

SIX LECTURES, 

DELIVERED IN 

GEORGE'S CHAPEL, EXETER, 

DURING THE MONTHS OF AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER, 1835| 
IN REPLY TO 

The Rev. DANIEL BAGOT, M. A. 



By the Rev, HENRY ACTON. 



REVISED FROM THE SHORT-HAND WRITER'S NOTES* 



LONDON I PUBLISHED BY R. HUNTER. ST. PAUL'S CHURCH- 
YARD; AND SOLD BY T. BALLE, HIGH-STREET, AND T. 
BESLEY, NORTH-STREET, EXETER J CURTIS, PLYMOUTH J 
BROWNE, BRISTOL; FORREST AND FOGG, MANCHESTER J 
ROBINSON, LEEDS; AND ALL OTHER BOOKSELLERS. 

EXETER. 

PRINTED BY T. BESLEY, NORTH STREET. 

1835. 



K 



ADVERTISEMENT. 



The circumstances which called for this public vindication 
of the Unitarian Doctrine, are sufficiently explained in the 
beginning of the first and fourth Lectures. The candid 
reader is requested to bear in mind, that these discourses 
were necessarily hurried productions. They were not written 
previous to being delivered ; and in preparing them for the 
Press, from a short-hand writer's notes, the Author has 
confined himself to simple revision and correction. Readers 
who are well acquainted with this controversy, will perceive 
that the Lecturer has frequently availed himself of the infor- 
mation and reasoning contained in several standard works on 
the subject. It was impossible to make acknowledgment of 
this, in every particular instance, when delivering the 
Lectures; and it is deemed unnecessary to do so in this 
publication. The Author is willing that his readers should 
consider him indebted to previous defenders of the sole deity 
of the Father, to any extent they please ; at the same time, 
he is conscious of having freely used his own judgment, 
respecting the truth of every assertion, and the validity of 
every argument, which is here advanced. These Lectures are 
published at the desire of the Author's much respected con- 
gregation. It is highly gratifying to him to find that they are 
(he believes without a single exception,) strengthened and 
confirmed in their Scriptural faith, by listening to this con- 
troversy. To them, with many thanks for their kindness, 
and to the sincere Christian inquirer of every denomination , 
these discourses are presented. May the God of Truth 
speedily cause the knowledge of his pure gospel to prevail 
in all the world. 

H. A, 

Exeter, October 27th, 1835, 



2 



LECTURE FIRST. 



of this proceeding ? By no means. The clergy of the Church 
of England, as indeed all other ministers of the Gospel, have an 
unquestionable right to combat what theyjbelieve to be error 
and heresy, in whatever manner they may deem proper. I 
only mention these circumstances because they account for 
others which followed. So unusual a notice, and something 
which I knew of the reputation of the preacher, induced me to 
attend and hear those discourses. All who were present will 
recollect, that the preacher did not proceed simply to demon- 
strate the truth of his own belief, but soon commenced attacking 
the opinions, arguments, objections, and modes of reasoning, 
of those whom he called Arians and Soeinians. I witnessed 
the strong impression which was evidently made on the minds 
of the audience. I saw a large proportion of my own con- 
gregation present. I began to reflect, whether it might not be 
necessary for me, however unpleasant the task, to make some 
reply. Still, from various causes, I was reluctant to do so ; 
and although I gave orders to prepare notices, I desired that 
they should not be distributed, till I had heard a second 
discourse; and I have every reason to believe, that those 
instructions were observed. Up to the moment, therefore, of 
my listening to the second discourse, no demonstration whatever 
had been given by me that I had any intention of replying to 
those sermons. I was, in consequence, a little surprised, to 
hear that respected clergyman say, from the pulpit, that " He 
knew there was what was called a Unitarian congregation, and 
what were called Unitarian Ministers, in this city, and that 
if those Ministers, in their prudence, and wisdom, and 
sound discretion, should think proper to make any reply 
to his arguments, he would, if it pleased God, return to 
this city, and give another course of Lectures on the same 
subject." I have no right to assume, and I do not assume, that 
there was any thing of the nature of a threat or a taunt implied 
in that obsersation. If there was, it must surely have been 
occasioned by some misunderstanding, or some false information ; 
for I am persuaded that that respected clergyman is a person 
incapable of consciously indulging any unprovoked feelings of 
contempt or unkindness. We heard him declare, how utterly 
he disapproved of all asperity and acrimony of spirit, in 
conducting religious controversy, and that he meant entirely 
to avoid it; and we witnessed how faithfully he abided by his 
declaration. I cheerfully testify, that as I never heard the 
principles of Unitarians opposed with greater ability, so neither 
did I ever hear them opposed with more entire freedom from 
all bigotry and uncharitableness. I cheerfully testify that the 
pledge which my reverend opponent gave in his public notice, 
that he would temperately examine the objections of Unitarians, 
was, so far as relates to the display of any uncharitable feelings, 
honourably fulfilled. I earnestly hope and pray that I may be 
able to follow his good example in this respect. It is my 



LECTURE FIRST. 



3 



sincere desire to do so ; and therefore I urgently beg*, that if by 
any chance, (which I think scarcely possible,) I should appear 
to say any thing in the slightest degree disrespectful towards 
that gentleman, you will have the kindness not so to interpret 
my words ; for you may be assured that I can have no such 
meaning. But from the moment he made that direct allusion, 
which I have mentioned, to the Unitarian Ministers of this city, 
I saw clearly that there was but one course for me to pursue. 
I felt that it was due to myself, due to my respected congregation, 
and, above all, due to the sacred value and importance of the 
principles in which T rejoice, that, relying on the support and 
blessing of God, I should undertake the defence of those 
doctrines which I believe to be the pure truths of the Gospel. 
I know the disadvantages I shall labour under, I know the 
disadvantage of having to treat this subject after it has been so 
recently discussed, in opposition to my own views, by one of 
such high ability and various accomplishments. I know 
likewise the disadvantage of having to plead against the deep 
religious convictions, not to say, the prejudices, of the great 
majority of Christians, and even of my actual hearers. Yes ! I 
am painfully sensible of the disadvantage of having the devout 
feelings of the many arrayed against me, and the sympathies of 
the few only on my side. Nevertheless, I repeat it, there is but 
one course for me to pursue ; and that is, to maintain the cause 
of what I hold to be divine truth to the utmost of my power. 

On another point 1 desire to be allowed a word of explana- 
tion. I do not undertake to follow closely, step by step, the line 
of reasoning which has been taken by my opponent, nor to restate 
and examine precisely every argument and every objection which 
he has advanced. I have no means that would enable me to do 
this. It were therefore vain and foolish in me to make any such 
pretensions. I will endeavour to vindicate the great principle 
of the strict unity of God, — the sole deity of the Father of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. In aiming at this object I shall 
certainly go over the same general grounds, I shall touch upon 
the same particular arguments, and examine very many of the 
same passages of Scripture. But this is all that I undertake. 
Let it be distinctly understood, therefore, if hereafter it shall be 
said, — "suchaparticular argument was not employed," or, " such 
was not precisely the way in which the argument was stated," 
— that, unless I have expressly represented that it was so, I shall 
not hold myself bound to give any answer to such remarks. 
Do not suppose from this, for one moment, that I wish to shrink 
from a fair degree of responsibility for any thing which may 
appear to just and impartial minds like wilful misrepresentation. 
1 have no such intention. I trust I am incapable of such 
conduct; and for any thing of that kind I willingly hold myself 
responsible in character. But for minute accuracy, in the 
restatement of my opponent's arguments and objections, I cannot 
be answerable, because I have no means that will enable me to 

b 2 



4 



LECTURE FIRST. 



Tbe se accurate. You, who were present at the delivery of those 
discourses, can judge of this for yourselves in every instance. 

Now the subject, as you have been already informed, is the 
unity, the strict personal unity of God, the sole deity of the God 
and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which excludes the proper 
deity of our Lord Jesus Christ himself. 

I entirely concur, my Christian friends, in all that we have 
heard respecting the great and solemn importance of entertaining 
right views on this subject. Undoubtedly, our views of many 
other great principles of the Gospel, our religious thoughts and 
sentiments on various points, will be in a great measure 
influenced by the deliberate convictions into which our minds 
may settle respecting the true nature and dignity of Christ; — 
and, give me leave to say, not only by such deliberate convictions,, 
but also by any prejudices on the subject which our minds may 
embrace. Unquestionably, that system of faith which is now 
commonly reputed to be orthodox, does rest, as for its very 
foundation, on this doctrine of the proper deity of our 
Saviour Jesus Christ. This doctrine is the key-stone, — of 
what? Not, you will remember, (unless you begin by at once 
assuming the very thing to be proved,) not of the genuine 
Gospel, but only of that peculiar system of faith which the great 
majority now believe to be the Gospel, but which many of us, in 
the free and serious exercise of our judgments on the teaching of 
the Scriptures, consider to be the mere inventions and traditions 
of men. Of this system, unquestionably, the doctrine of the 
proper deity of Christ is the very key-stone. Strike this away,, 
and the entire fabric falls to the ground. Now> I pray you to 
consider, what does this prove.? It proves, as I have said, that 
it is of great importance we should entertain right views on this 
subject. But does it show, that it is necessary to be on our guard 
against error on one side of the question, any more than on the 
other? against the adoption of Unitarian any more than of 
Trinitarian views? It is easy indeed, as we have lately witnessed, 
for any one whose religious convictions induce him to take such 
a course, to give an entirely one-sided influence to this con- 
sideration of the importance of the subject, It is easy, for 
example, to dwell on its importance from its connection with the 
doctrine of Atonement by vicarious sacrifice, (for in the 
Scriptural doctrine of Atonement, simply considered, we all 
believe,) but I say the doctrine of Atonement by vicarious 
sacrifice— the doctrine of Salvation by Faith in the imputed 
righteousness of Christ — and other supposed orthodox tenets. 
He who begins by expatiating on the importance of the doctrine 
of the deity of Christ on these grounds, is sure to carry along 
with him,an his argument, the earnest wishes and sympathies 
of the great majority of Christians. He knows, that it is not so 
much with the abstract doctrine of our Saviour's deity, as with 
those other connected doctrines, that the religious hopes and 
fears of Christian people are at present most closely associated* 



LECTURE FIRST. 



5 



He knows, therefore, that by adopting* such a course, he carries 
along with him, from the commencement, not so much the calm, 
impartial judgments, as the agitated feelings of his hearers, who 
are waiting with anxious hearts to find that he can completely 
establish his doctrine. All this is well enough in a professed 
advocate for the Trinitarian system. But I wish you to consider, 
whether this be precisely the frame of mind which is best suited 
for a cool, unbiassed examination of the evidence, on both sides 
of this important question ? T think decidedly not. In order to 
take a dispassionate view of the subject, it is necessary, either to 
leave the consequences entirely out of consideration, until we have 
made up our minds respecting the truth, or else, if we consider the 
consequences on one side, to consider them also on the other. 
Suffer me, then, to mention a few particulars in which I, speaking 
as a Unitarian, regard the subject as highly important. Remember 
— I do not deny the solemn consequences of a wrong- decision as 
they are viewed by the Trinitarian. I have considered them often, 
and, I hope, seriously. But \ simply desire, in justice to my own 
argument, to point out to your attention, that there are solemn 
consequences following from a wrong decision on either side of 
the question. 

First. It is of extreme importance to entertain right views 
on this subject, because, if you believe in the deity of Christ, and 
this doctrine should not be true, then do you most unnecessarily 
confuse the great doctrine of the unity of God, which is admitted 
on all hands to be one of the fundamental principles of 
revealed religion. I must not say, indeed, that you entirely 
overthrow and destroy this doctrine. I know that if I 
were to say this, I should be charged with misrepre- 
sentation. I only say, therefore, that by believing in the 
proper deity of Jesus Christ, you bring great obscurity upon 
that glorious principle of revelation, and of all true religion, that 
there is but one God. Is it not so? You believe in and worship 
two, nay three, divine persons. If this be the doctrine of the 
Scriptures, we are unquestionably bound to receive it. But if 
this be an error, as I firmly believe it is, then do you, who 
entertain it, most unjustifiably bring in the perplexing idea of 
some kind of plurality into your conceptions of God, who in the 
Scriptures is repeatedly and solemnly declared to be one. Nor 
is it barely the idea of plurality which is thus introduced into the 
believer's mind ; but there are many peculiar/ee/z/z^s arising out 
of this idea, which must necessarily affect bis character and 
conduct as a worshipper of God. You see, therefore, the great 
importance of entertaining right views on this subject. 

Secondly. A correct judgment on this question is extremely 
impoitant, because, if you believe in and worship Jesus Christ 
as properly God, (though a distinct person from the Father,) and 
if this should be an error, then are you chargeable, however 
unwittingly, with worshiping the creature instead of the 
Creator. Observe; I do not affirm absoI'utely,that Trinitarians 

b 3 



G 



LECTURE FIKST. 



do worship a mere creature. This were to pronounce that 
my own opinion is certainly right, and the opinion of Trinita- 
rians certainly wrong 1 . But I say that, since you certainly 
worship Christ as God, if he be not so, then do you manifestly 
worship the creature instead of the Creator, Our Lord Jesus 
Christ is either himself God, or he is but a creature of God- 
There is no middle belief. If you should be mistaken in your 
doctrine of his proper deity, therefore, you plainly do that 
which Jehovah has solemnly declared shall not be done, by 
giving His glory to another. You see then, again, in this point 
of view, the extreme importance of correct views on this 
subject. 

Thirdly. If you believe in the proper deity of Christ, and 
this doctrine be not true, then do you, entirely through your 
own error, by your own misinterpretation of the Scriptures., 
burden divine revelation, the highest and best gift of God to 
mankind, with the astoundin^ly unreasonable doctrine, that the 
infinite, eternal, immutable God, appeared on earth in the form 
of a human being I This is a doctrine which, whether true or 
false, some of its most zealous advocates have acknowledged to 
be such as "makes reason stand aghast,' 7 It is a doctrine 
which, whether true or false, has undoubtedly contributed 
much to prejudice the minds of reasonable men against the 
Christian Religion. Here, then, we perceive again, the very 
great importance of right views on this subject. 

Now, do not misunderstand my object in making these 
remarks. I have no wish to excite blind fears in any man's 
mind against the adoption of the Trinitarian faith. I simply 
desire to convince you, that there are serious consequences to 
be apprehended from a wrong decision, on either side of this 
great question. The respected clergyman to whom I am 
opposed in this discussion, told his hearers in the outset, that 
he considered us who deny the deity of Christ to be in a state 
of dangerous error. He said indeed, at the same time, that he, 
as a fallible mortal, would not take upon himself to judge us. I 
thank him for that sentiment, so worthy a charitable and en- 
lightened minister of the Gospel. But yet he assured his hearers, 
that he does consider us to be in a state of very dangerous error. 
Now, if this assertion gives my opponent any advantage in the 
controversy, which perhaps it may, I cheerfully submit to the 
disadvantage. I cannot here retaliate. I have no hesitation in 
telling my Trinitarian hearers, that if they have diligently 
sought for trath, if they are perfectly sincere in their present 
views, if they apply their principles to the regulation of their 
hearts and conduct, then, although I do consider them to be in 
error, I do not consider them to be in any real spiritual danger. 
Fori am persuaded, that the God of infinite goodness and 
mercy will never suffer the everlasting happiness or misery of 
his creatures to be determined by their subjection to, or escape 
from, a mere involuntary error of judgment. 



fcECTUUE FIRST* 



7 



I perceive that there are one or two other preliminary topics, 
which it will be most convenient to dispose of here, before 1 
proceed to the main argument. It was said, by the preacher to 
whose discourses I am referring*, that we who reject the doctrine 
of the proper deity of Christ have no exclusive claim to the title 
of Unitarians. It was said that they who believe in the deity 
of Christ, and in the doctrine of the Trinity, areas strictly 
Unitarians as we are. I was astonished to hear such a remark 
from a man of an acute and sensible mind. We ought surely to 
be rejoiced to hear this. Our name has long been a term of 
reproach in the religious world. I believe that many thousands 
have held our opinions who have been ashamed to be called by 
our name. It is a pleasing change to see these circumstances 
reversed ; and as Trinitarians now begin to claim our denomi- 
nation, we may hope they will soon be brought to embrace our 
doctrines. But seriously, my brethren, it does appear to me, 
that this objection to our exclusive use of the name Unitarian is 
founded on a palpable blunder. You say that you, who 
believe in the Trinity, are Unitarians as well as we ? How is 
this ? Because, say you, we believe that the three persons of 
the godhead are but one God as well as you. I grant it ; but 
you might as justly claim to be called Unitarians because 
you believe God delivered the Israelites from Egypt by the hand 
of Moses, or because you approve the Philosophy of Sir Isaac 
Newton. The term Unitarian does not mean, and never did 
mean, simply a believer in one God, as distinguished from poly- 
theists. How can it mean this, seeing that it is a term which 
has arisen out of disputes within the Christian Church, where 
all parties have ever professed to believe in only one God ? 
I entreat you to consider, to what conclusion this objection 
manifestly leads, — a conclusion which Trinitarians will be the 
last persons to admit. Are not Trinitarian and Unitarian 
directly correlative and opposite terms ? Does the name 
Trinitarian, then, signify a believer in three Gods ? You will 
answer, indignantly, No! it means a believer in three divine 
persons in one God. Well then, the name Unitarian, which is 
its correlative, does not mean simply a believer in one God, but 
a believer in the strict personal unity of God, in direct opposi- 
tion to the Trinitarian doctrine. Do you believe in the unity 
of God in this sense ? Certainly not. How then can you be 
Unitarians as well as we ? 

It is not long since that a distinguished Trinitarian divine, 
a dignitary of the Church of England, brought forward this 
objection, declaring that all who embrace the faith of the Esta- 
blished Church are properly Unitarians. A short time after- 
wards, a great legal Authority declared, that the name 
Unitarian is so utterly inconsistent with the profession of 
Christianity, that for any persons to call themselves Unitarian 
Christians, was no less absurd than to call themselves French 
Englishmen ! The lawyer, however presumptuous in his 



8 



LECTURE FIRST. 



judgment, did understand the meaning of the term ; thedivine 3 
to whose vocation such knowledge might be supposed to belong, 
had completely mistaken its meaning. 

Let us now proceed to the more immediate discussion of our 
subject. The question in dispute, as we have heard itstated, 
relates to the proper Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and not 
merely to his Divinity, in any inferior sense. We have been 
told, indeed, that Unitarians sometimes profess to believe in the 
divinity of Christ, meaning only that they acknowledge his 
divine mission and office. Perhaps it was intended, by this, 
that we employ deceptive language on this subject. Tfso, I 
utterly deny the justice of the charge, as regards Unitarians in 
general. To the best of my knowledge, this mode of speaking 
has never been common amongst us ; nor do I believe it has 
ever been resorted to for purposes of wilful deception. Tf this 
has been done, I join cordially in condemning all such mean 
evasions. Certainly, the question in dispute between us relates 
to the proper Deity of Christ. The enquiry is, whether Jesus 
Christ is himself truly and properly God. 

I am also ready to acknowledge, that the question is not 
whether there be, or be not, more than one God. It is said to be 
admitted, on the Trinitarian side, that there is but one God; 
and I am very willing to take it so for the present. Do not 
forget, however, that this admission brings upon you, as a 
Trinitarian, the difficulty, either of showing, how there can 
be more than one divine person, each being truly and properly 
God, or else of acknowledging that you cannot show this, and 
therefore that the doctrine of the Scriptures concerning God 
is a strange and perplexing mystery. If there were no such 
admitted principle of the unity of God, you would of course be 
placed in no such difficulty. You would then merely have to 
show, that each of your divine persons has just claims to be 
regarded as God, and the whole question would be settled. But 
it being laid down, at your own request, as a postulate, an axiom, 
a first principle not to be disturbed, that there is but one God, 
I cannot allow j'ou to overlook the unenviable situation in which 
this places you, as the advocate for apluralityof divine persons. 
I feel myself justified in calling upon the Trinitarian, at the 
outset of this argument, to be very cautious that he does not, 
by his own hasty interpretation of the Scriptures, introduce a 
contradiction, or anything like a contradiction, to that which 
he himself acknowledges to be a first principle of true and 
revealed religion. 

But on this point, we have lately heard it said, that " these 
Unitarians, as they call themselves, must not be allowed to set 
up their preconceived notions of Unity. What is Unity?" we 
are asked. " Let the Socinian define it, if he can. I defy the 
Socinian to tell me what Unity is. Let him bring any instance 
of Unity from nature, and 1 will undertake to shew that it involves 
some kind of plurality. " Now, my brethren, T say that all this 



LECTURE FIRST. 



9 



is unmeaning- talk. Preconceived notions of Unity ! Wha4, 
must we go to the Bible to gain our notion of Unity ? This 
seems to me forbidding men to do that, which by the very 
constitution of their minds they cannot avoid doing. Every 
mortal must have some notion of Unity, before he goes to the 
study of divine truth in the Bible. Perhaps we cannot strictly 
define Unity ; and perhaps a reflecting person will immediately 
perceive why we cannot do this. A definition necessarily consists 
of an enumeration of the parts or qualities of the thing defined ; 
and as Unity has no parts, it may therefore be impossible to 
define it in words, with strict logical precision. But what then ? 
Does it follow that we cannot understand it, that we have no clear 
notion of Unity? By no means. I think, at all events, I may 
safely undertake to define Unity, when the Trinitarian shall 
define to me the difference between a divine person and a God. 
But I say again, that all this is unmeaning talk. Whether I can 
define it or not, every man who does not suffer himself to be 
deluded by theological casuistry, must know that the idea of 
Unity is one of the simplest and clearest ideas which the human, 
mind can entertain. There is nothing in this subtle disquisition 
about Unity, which will apply in religion to the argument of the 
Unitarian, at all more forcibly than it will apply in arithmetic 
to the reckoning of an Accountant. I know, that in almost every 
instance of Unity in the works of art or nature, there is involved 
some kind of plurality. Yes, in one pound there are many 
shillings, in one house there are many rooms, in one tree there 
are many branches, in one nation there are many men. But 
after all, there is but one pound, one house, one tree, one nation ; 
and I contend that the idea which we have of Unity, when we 
say this, is as distinct and comprehensible an idea as any which 
the understanding can embrace. Each shilling is not a pound, 
each room is not a house, each branch is not a tree, each man 
is not a nation. 1 maintain, therefore, that it signifies nothing 
what plurality of persons, or distinctions of any kind, you 
imagine to exist in the Godhead. Each person or distinction 
is not in himself, or itself, truly and properly God; or if it be 
so, then it is not true, in any warrantable or conceivable sense 
of the word Unity, that there is but one God, But I have no 
desire to treat of this subject on grounds of human reason 
merely. I am always glad to take my stand on the ground of 
Scripture, — to set my foot firmly on the rock of divine revelation. 

Let us advance therefore to the investigation of the 
Scriptural evidence. How shall we proceed ? YVe have agreed 
upon it, as an axiom, a first principle not to be disturbed, that 
there is but one God. Will it also be admitted, that the Father, 
the being or person in the Scriptures denominated the Father, 
is God ? In general this likewise has been admitted. But my 
opponent on this occasion has a new way of conducting this 
old controversy. He thinks this ought not to be admitted. He 
contends that we Unitarians should be first called on to prove 



10 



LECTURE FIRST. 



that (be Father is God, and then he will undertake to prove, by 
arguments of the same kind and force, equally numerous, 
equally strong, equally unambiguous and decisive, that the Son 
also is God. There is some novelty in this mode of proceeding; 
and in a beaten controversy like this, it is refreshing to meet 
with something new. I therefore gladly accept his proffered 
conditions. I think them exceedingly favorable to my own 
argument as a Unitarian. J could not recommend a more 
satisfactory method of investigating the evidence of the 
Scriptures on this subject. By all means, I say, observe first, 
how numerous, how direct, how explicit, are the passages of 
holy writ which prove that the Father is God. But we shall 
not for this purpose, as my reverend opponent strangely 
imagines, go to the 1st verse of the 1st Chapter of Genesis — 
" In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth." 
We shall not go there, because the Father is not there 
mentioned by this name; and therefore I do not exactly see 
what need there was to get up this shew of confuting the Unita- 
rian, when in fact the preacher must have known, that he was 
wandering from the true grounds of the controversy as far as 
the poles are asunder. 

We shall go to those passages of the Old and New 
Testament, in which Almighty God is expressly spoken of 
under the name of Father. Such passages there are even in 
the Jewish Scriptures; though it is in the Christian Scriptures, 
that we find this made the distinguishing and peculiar name of 
the true God. But we read in Malachi (Ch. 2. v. 10.) " Have 
we not all one Father, hath not one God created us?" and it is 
evident from the answer of the Jews to our Saviour, (John Ch. 
8. v. 41,) that they recognized this title as belonging to their 
Jehovah. We go at once, however, to the New Testament. We 
read, (in John Ch. 4. v. 23.) " The hour cometh and now is, 
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father \n spirit and 
in truth ; for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is 
a spirit." We read (in Matthew Ch. 11. v. 25.) that Jesus 
said, " I thank thee, 0 Father, Lord of Heaven and Earth, 
because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, 
and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so Father, for so it 
seemed good in thy sight." And again, (in Luke Chap. 12. 
v. 31— 32) " Seek ye the kingdom of God, and all these things 
shall be added unto you. Fear not, little flock, for it is your 
Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." Again, 
(in John Ch. 17, v. 11,) Jesus exclaims, " Holy Father keep 
through thine own name those whom thou hast given me ;' 
and again, (in the 25, v.) " O righteous Father, the world hath 
not known thee." But there can be no occasion to multiply 
quotations of this kind. We all know, that this was the name 
by which Jesus Christ himself uniformly addressed and 
worshipped the true God. I suppose I may say, without 
exaggeration, that the name is applied to God several hundred 



LECTURE FIRST, 



times in the New Testament. Thus then, without any 
comparing, or inferring-, or deducing, I lay before you a great 
number of passages of Scripture, in which the person denomi* 
nated the Father is clearly recognised as God. 

Now, it being acknowledged that there is but one God, and 
it being thus proved, by ample testimony of holy writ, that 
the Father is God, are we not justified in concluding at once 
that the Father alone is God ? To my astonishment we are told, 
No ! Whv not? Because, as I am assured, in these passages 
the name Father is not applied to God personally considered, 
not in his personal distinction, as one of the members of the 
godhead. I am told, that the name is in these instances used 
merely as a general descriptive title of the Supreme Being, 
describing his relations to his creatures, as their Maker and 
Preserver. I answer, that I know this full well. I believe that, 
not only in these passages, but in every other passage of Scrip = 
ture in which the name of Father is given to God, it applies to 
him, not in respect to any personal distinction from other sup- 
posed members of the godhead, but always in reference to his 
moral relations towards his human creatures. It is one of my 
very strongest objections to the Trinitarian doctrine, that it 
tends to destroy the solemn, holy charm, which belongs to this 
Scriptural name of God, — as an illustration of his tender mercy 
and loving kindness, drawn from the nearest and dearest rela- 
tion of human beings, that between parent and child, — and sub- 
stitutes in its place a vain scholastic, metaphysical, incompre- 
hensible notion of some personal distinctions in the godhead, 
concerning which we read not a word in the Sriptures, and from 
which we can derive no moral or spiritual edification. I wish, 
moreover, to be told, by what rule of right reasoning 1 am to 
be called upon to admit, in this stage of the argument, that the 
name Father ever does refer in Scripture to a personal dis- 
tinction in the godhead. I am pursuing the inquiry in the 
way which my opponent declares to be proper. In this 
stage of the argument therefore, at all events, I claim all these 
passages as proofs that the Father is God ; and since you 
yourself admit that there is but one God, I maintain, on these 
simple grounds, that the Father alone is God. However, I do 
not wish here entirely to close the argument. If you can prove 
to ine, from other passages of Scripture, that the Son also is 
God, I must needs submit my judgment to such authority. I 
will not obstinately shut my mind against all further evidence. 
But rest assured, that you shall not easily shake my confidence 
in the conclusion which appears to me to follow so irresistibly 
from all these passages. I shall hold fast to them ; — for they 
are to me precious evidences of a precious and glorious truth, 
not a mere speculative dogma, but a truth which, to my mind, 
is connected with all that is most beautiful and most consola- 
tory in the divine religion of the Gospel. 



12 



LECTURE FIRST. 



Strange as it may seem, however, T am confidently told, that 
all which has hitherto been admitted or proved is nothing 
whatever to the purpose. I have been told, that T may prove, 
or take for granted, that there is but one God; I may prove 
that the person or being denominated the Father is God ; I may 
prove, or take for granted, that Christ and the Father are two 
distinct persons ; I may prove, or take for granted, that Jesus 
Christ was a man ; I may bring forward millions of proofs of each 
of these propositions; and yet all this is nothing whatever to 
the purpose, in reference to the question, whether Jesus Christ 
himself be God! I say, peremptorily, that I will not allow 
this. I know, indeed, that there is still something more for the 
Unitarian to do, before he has thoroughly dislodged the Tri- 
nitarian from his skillfully fortified position, before he has 
driven him out of all the labyrinths and sinuosities of his com- 
plicated system. I acknowledge this ; but yet I say, it is most 
extravagant to affirm that all which has hitherto been proved 
is nothing whatever to the purpose. I contend that it is a great 
deal to the purpose. I will tell you why, and how. Because, 
it being admitted that there is but one God, that the Father is 
God, that Jesus is a distinct person from the Father, and that 
Jesus Christ was a man, — all this being admitted or proved, — 
there falls upon you entirely the tremendous burden of proving 
that nevertheless Jesus Christ is God ! I entreat you to consider 
the nature of this new proposition, whichyou now aim to establish, 
in its relation to other propositions which are already established. 
Consider again the serious consequences of leading yourself, by 
mere inferential reasoning, into error on this point, and thereby 
obscuring the great doctrine of the Unity of God. I am aware 
that there are grounds on which the Trinitarian may still take 
his stand, and pertinaciously maintain that his opinion is not 
yet confuted. But if I know anything of the nature of moral 
evidence, there is nothing which is more likely to mislead a 
man of acute mind, than the habit of insisting on a strictly 
logical demonstration of amoral question. Such questions are 
almost always to be determined, not by absolute demonstration, 
but by the general weight and balance of moral probabilities. 

However, I understand the argument of my opponent to 
stand thus. He contends that, although it has been esta- 
blished that there is but one God, that the Father is God, and 
that Jesus Christ is a distinct person from the Father, yet that 
T must further prove, by some positive evidence of Scripture, 
that the Father alone is God, or else I must shew, that his al- 
leged evidence for the proper deity of the Son is inconclusive. 
1 will not shrink from the work allotted me in either respect. 

First, then, to prove by some positive evidence of Scripture, 
that the Father alone is God. I refer you confidently to the 
] 7th Chap, and 3rd v. of the Gospel according to John. Our 
Saviour himself, addressing the Father in prayer, says ex- 
pressly, " This is life eternal, that they may know thee, the 



LECTURE FIRST. 



13 



only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Now, 
here is a solemn declaration from the lips of Jesus himself, that 
the Father is " the only true God." And observe, it cannot 
be said that the name Father is here used in that general sense, 
which is supposed to include the other two persons of the Tri- 
nity. This cannot be said, because the Son himself is here 
speaking of and to the Father, and he says " thee the only true 
God." But we have lately heard it remarked, (as far as I un- 
stood the preacher,) that the Unitarian can derive no argument 
from this passage, because it is not affirmed that the Father is 
the only God, or alone God, but merely that he is the only true 
God. The qualifying word only, we were told, is attached to 
the adjective " true," and not to the substantive " God." I 
may admit this ; but I see no force whatever in the observation. 
Suppose the Father is not the only God. Indeed, 1 know that 
he is not the only God; for I read in Scripture that there are 
" gods many." But if he be " the only true God," that is 
quite sufficient for my purpose. We, as Christians, are surely 
not to acknowledge and worship any God but the true God. 
I maintain, therefore, that the testimony of this passage to the 
sole deity of the Father is clear and decisive. I am not in the 
habit of hurling defiance at my theological opponents ; but 
I must declare, with all sincerity, that I can see no possible 
way of fairly evading this testimony. 

I refer you, in the next place, to the 8th. Ch. and 6. v. of the 
1st. Epistle to the Corinthians: " To us there is but one God, 
the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him ; and one 
Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." 
If it had here been the intention of the Apostle expressly to 
contradict the Trinitarian doctrine, I cannot conceive how he 
could have found language more pointedly to his purpose. 
You will observe, that the Apostle does not merely say that 
there is but one God. The person, (if we must have recourse to 
that distinction without a difference of which Trinitarians are 
so fond,) the person who is the only true God is here expressly 
mentioned, and it is declared to be the Father. Then, in the 
very next words> as if on purpose to remove all ground for doubt 
or cavil, the Apostle proceeds to speak of Jesus Christ as a dis- 
tinct person from the Father, and sustaining a different relation, 
towards mankind. Having said that the Father is the only 
true God of whom are all things, he adds immediately that 
Jesus Christ isthe only Lord of Christians, by or through whom 
they receive all spiritual blessings. 

Thus it is again proved, by positive evidence of Scripture, 
that the Father alone is God. Yet we are confidently told, that 
all this does not by any means establish the truth of the 
Unitarian doctrine; for that evidences as numerous, as explicit, 
and as strong, nay, in some cases even stronger, can be found 
to prove that the Son is God likewise. I am filled with, 
unfeigned astonishment, to hear any man venture on such a 



14 



LECTURE FIRST* 



bold assertion. I verily believe that it is not the genera! 
conviction of rational and sober-minded Trinitarians. There 
is one fact which seems to render this opinion very iraprobable a 
You know, that within the Christian Church there never has 
existed any doubt that the Father is God ; but in all ages there 
have been Christians, and serious and intelligent Christians 
too, who have both doubted and denied that the Son is properly 
God. How, then, can any man take upon himself to set up his 
own judgment, thus confidently, in opposition to the universal 
experience of the Christian Church ? Surely there must be 
some delusion here. 

I proceed immediately to the other part of my allotted 
task, — to show that the alleged evidence for the proper deity of 
Christ is either irrelevant or inconclusive. Now, I am willing 
to acknowledge that this is the most difficult portion of my 
work, as an advocate for the Unitarian faith. But in making 
this admission, I do not mean to allow for a moment, that there 
is any real evidence in the Scriptures for the proper deity of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. The difficulty arises entirely from 
other circumstances. I beseech you to consider that, in this 
part of the argument, the Trinitarian, whether right or wrong, 
enjoys at present a singular advantage. He has, in general, 
merely to give to certain passages of Scripture that application, 
and that meaning, in which they are already commonly received. 
In arguing, especially, before a promiscuous congregation, 
ninety-nine out of every hundred of his audience may never 
have heard of any other application, or any other meaning, of 
those passages. But an advocate for the Unitarian doctrine, 
whether right or wrong, has in general to shew, either that the 
passages commonly supposed to apply to Christ do not apply to 
him, — or else, that the sense commonly attached to those pas- 
sages is an erroneous sense. In this part of the argument, 
therefore, the Trinitarian can, as it were, travel over more 
ground in a quarter of an hour, than the Unitarian can traverse 
in an hour. And all this, I contend, without implying in the 
Jeast that the Unitarian is wrong, and the Trinitarian right, in 
the interpretation of those passages. You may say, indeed, 
that this is my own fault, because 1 will not abide by the plain, 
obvious meaning of the language of holy writ. This is your 
account of the matter. But I may answer, that it is altogether 
your fault, because you, and your predecessors in the Trini- 
tarian faith for many centuries, have entirely perverted mens' 
views of the meaning of Scripture, and left to others the task of 
correcting those erroneous views. I am firmly persuaded, that 
this is the chief reason that more persons do not at present 
embrace the Unitarian doctrine; and this persuasion causes me 
to entertain great and sincere respect, not only for the motives, 
but also for the understandings, of those who continue to 
believe in the Trinity, notwithstanding what appears to my 
mind such clear and strong proof of its being a groundless error. 



LECTURE FIRST. 



lb 



You will suffer me to read you a few remarks ki confirmation 
of this opinion, from one whose judgment on this subject is 
entitled to the highest respect. The writer whom I shall 
quote, is the Rev. Joseph Blanco White. Many of you may 
remember something of his history. He was originally a 
Catholic Priest in Spain, but being converted to Protestantism 
he came over to this country, more than twenty years since, 
and took orders in the Church of England. He has of late 
years been a member of the household of the present enlight- 
ened Archbishop of Dublin ; but having now become, from his 
persevering study of the Scriptures, a decided and professed 
Unitarian, he has of course left that situation, and the com- 
munion of the established Church. These are his words on 
the subject of which I am treating; " Argumentative discus- 
" sion on the divinity of Christ is particularly apt to allure 
" the mind into the snares of verbal criticism concerning indi- 
" vidual passages. That subject, on the contrary, should be 
" settled by means of the collective impression conveyed by the 
" writings of the New Testament ; preceded, however, by a 
li careful examination of the preconceived notions by which. 
" education has prepared us all to attach the orthodox meaning 
" to certain leading words and phrases of Scripture. This is 
" the great difficulty. We are brought up under the most de- 
" liberate party prejudices, sanctioned by the most awful 
" spiritual fears. Unless, therefore, our first care is to exa- 
" mine their real worth, the unassisted reading of the Scrip- 
u tures must mislead us. To refer a Trinitarian in doubt to 
" the Scriptures only, has, indeed, a great air of candour ; but 
" if the person thus sent to that supreme but mute authority has 
" been most assiduously taught to understand it only in one 
" sense, and kept in perfect ignorance of all that has and may 
" be said to prove that sense erroneous, his mental associations 
" leave him no choice : it is like inviting a man to venture his 
" all upon dice which have been previously cogged, and 
" shaming him, on the score of impartiality, from listening to 
" those who engage to shew him where the trick lies. Never- 
" theless, in my own case, I solemnly declare that I employed 
Si no Unitarian works to counterbalance the prejudices of my 
u education. I never read any defence of Unitarianism, till, 
" in 1818, the study of the New Testament alone had made 
" me a Unitarian.' 7 — Orthodoxy and Heresy. Preface, p. x. 

I will now commence my examination of those passages of 
Scripture, to which the Trinitarian appeals in proof that Jesus 
Christ is God. It is plain, however, that I cannot examine 
ell such passages ; but [ will conscientiously, and to the best 
of my knowledge, select those passages which I understand to 
be considered the strongest. If any person shall choose to say, 
that I pass by other texts because I feel that they tell against 
me, and know not how to answer them, I have no alternative 
but to submit to the influence of this representation ; but I 



16 



LECTURE FIRST. 



protest against it, as unjust and groundless. It is want of 
time alone which prevents me from considering every text that 
Las been produced. 

The first passage to which I will call your attention, is in 
the 9th Ch. and 6. v. of the Prophecy of Isaiah. " For unto 
us a child is born, unto us a son is given ; and the govern- 
ment shall be upon his shoulder ; and his name shall be called 
Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Fa- 
ther, the Prince of Peace." You have heard it said, that 
Unitarians evade this decisive proof of the godhead of Christ, 
by alleging that the prophecy relates to King Hezekiah. If 
it be meant, that Unitarians represent this prophecy as relating 
to Hezekiah exclusively, I answer that this is not true of Uni- 
tarians in general. I scarcely know of more than one Unitarian 
writer, who has maintained this opinion. If it be meant that 
Unitarians refer this prediction to Hezekiah in the first place, 
and in an inferior sense, whilst they refer it likewise and 
chiefly to Christ, then I answer that many Trinitarians have 
done the same. It has been commonly thought, that there is 
this kind of double application in many prophecies of the Old 
Testament. But I repeat the assertion, that Unitarian Chris- 
tians in general have not referred this prophecy to Hezekiah 
exclusively. Turning to my shelves, in preparing for this 
Lecture, I find no less than six distinct treatises on this pro- 
phecy, written by Unitarians, on the express admission and 
acknowledgement that it relates to Christ. This is likewise 
my own opinion. Now, it has been well observed, that the 
expressions in this passage are all formed in a style of royalty. 
They foretel the appearance of a Prince, of a Ruler, one who 
should have the government upon his shoulders. This will be 
allowed to be generally descriptive of our Saviour's power and 
authority. We know that he is styled a King, and the Gospel 
dispensation is called a Kingdom, in the Scriptures of the New 
Testament. The prophecy, moreover, sets forth, concerning 
this royal child who was to be born, that his name should be 
called 'Wonderful. This epithet is sufficiently applicable to our 
Saviour. No one who believes in the Scripture History of 
his birth, his miracles, his doctrine, his resurrection, and, 
more marvellous than all, his holy, spotless character, can 
doubt for a moment that he is justly described as wonderful. 
It is likewise said, in the prophecy, that this child who was to 
be born should bear the name of Counseller. Surely this like- 
wise was an epithet exceedingly applicable to our Saviour. He 
is justly styled Counseller ; for " the spirit of the Lord rested 
upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit 
of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear 
of the Lord." He was in the bosom of the Father, intimately 
acquainted with his divine will and counsels. The spirit of 
God was given unto him without measure. There is no truth, 
or knowledge, or wisdom, which we as mortal and sinful 



LECTURE FIRST. 



17 



creatures can desire to receive, but he is able to communicate 
it to us fully and infallibly. Then it is further declared, in the 
prophecy, that the child to be born should be called by the 
names of " Mighty God," and "Everlasting Father". It is not 
said, you will observe, that he is Mighty God, but only that he 
should be so called* This would appear to indicate at once, 
that these epithets are applied to him descriptively, to describe 
some extraordinary circumstances or qualities belonging to him, 
and not as proper names. It is worthy of remark, that all the 
other epithets occurring in this passage, are simply descriptive, 
such as " Wonderful, Counseller, Prince of Peace." These 
epithets are manifestly used to shew what kind of a person the 
predicted child should become, his peculiar qualities, and his 
distinguished character. Surely, then, it may be considered 
somewhat strange, if in the midst of these there should occur one 
which is not meant to be properly descriptive, but to be taken 
as a proper name, or peculiar title, " The Mighty God." Let 
us therefore consider, by examining the application of tbem in 
ether passages, whether the Hebrew words here translated 
*' Mighty God", may not be likewise understood as merely de- 
scriptive epithets, given to a person who is not properly God, 
but who is distinguished by some extraordinary qualities. 
With respect to the word Tq,} GEBUR, translated mighty, 
there can be no difficulty. The word AL, or EL, trans- 
lated God, is the only word which requires consideration. The 
very same word, (in the plural, as is most common,) is in 
Exodus, 7th c. and 1st v., applied to Moses, and translated 
God: "I have made thee a God to Pharaoh." It is also 
several times applied to the Judges of Israel, and translated 
Judge, or Judges, in our common version of the Scriptures ; as 
in Exodus c. 21, v. 6 ; c. 22, v. 8 and 9 ; 1st Samuel c. 2, v. 25 ; 
and in several other places. Undoubtedly, this word is often 
applied to the true God; but since it is likewise often applied 
to human beings, and signifies in itself nothing more than 
strong^ or mighty, it cannot of itself prove the proper Deity of 
the person to whom it is applied. For instance, in the book of 
Ezekiel, c. 31, v. 11, the very same epithet ^ EL, is given 
to Nebuchadnezzar, and translated " mighty one :" " I have 
therefore delivered him into the hand of the mighty one of the 
heathen ;" and again it occurs, in the plural, in c. 32, v. 21, and 
is there translated strong: "The strong among the mighty" 
D*T|1J *^>ft — the same two words as in the 9th of Isaiah, 
only in the plural number. Again it is found in the Book of 
Job, c. 41, v. 25, and there translated " the mighty" in our 
common version: "When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are 
afraid." We see, therefore, very plainly, that it is not a peculiar 
title of the true God, but may be applied descriptively to any 
great and powerful person. It has been so understood in this 
passage by many learned Trinitarian authorities. The great 

c 3 



IB 



LECTURE FIRST. 



Reformer, Martin Luther, in his German version of the Bible, 
has rendered the two words mighty, hero, or strong, hero ; 
C Kraft, Held.) Luther cannot surely be suspected of any- 
sectarian bias, in respect to the meaning" of this prophecy. In 
this descriptive sense, then, this epithet also was very applicable 
to our Saviour, who was to be a great spiritual Potentate or 
Ruler, mighty in power, wisdom, and authority. It is likewise 
said, in this place, that the person to be born should be called 
" Everlasting Father." The words so translated may be justly 
rendered, "Father" (in the sense of author, or founder,) " of the 
age to come," or " Father of the future age*" Bishop 
Lowth, a most accomplished Hebrew scholar, in his learned 
and beautiful translation of this prophet, has rendered the words 
thus, " Father of the everlasting age." This, again, is very 
descriptive of our Saviour's character and office, as the Author 
of the Gospel Dispensation of truth and righteousness. Lastly, 
the person to be born is called, " Prince of Peace." This is 
clearly very applicable to Jesus Christ, and beautifully descrip- 
tive of his heavenly work and character. He came to make our 
peace with God, and to reconcile us unto the Father. He came 
to promote peace on earth, between man and man, nation and 
nation. He alone, by our sincere faith and obedience towards 
him, can give us that true peace of God which passeth all 
understanding. Thus, then, I have shewn, that every part of 
this prophecy is strikingly suitable to the character of our 
Saviour, without in the least degree implying his proper deity. 

I would just observe, that I know there is in this passage, 
as in many other passages of Scripture referring to Jesus Christ, 
a certain complexity of construction, a sort of contrast between 
the lowly and the great. But I contend, that we should endea- 
vour to account for this complexity, and this contrast, not by 
hypotheses, but by facts. It is declared here, for instance, that 
the person foretold should be a child, should be born ; and yet 
he is described as ivonderfal and mighty. How is this to be 
accounted for? The Trinitarian accounts for it by supposing- 
that Christ had two natures, the human and the divine. But 
this is altogether his own invention and hypothesis. We should 
rather explain the circumstance by the help of facts, — of that 
which we know, not that which we may suppose ; — and it is a 
fact, indisputably taught in the Scriptures, that our Lord Jesus 
Christ, although a man by nature, was in office and authority 
the best beloved Son of God, invested with the highest power 
and authority from heaven, that he might be hereby consti- 
tuted a Prince and a Saviour unto men. 

The next passage of Scripture to which I will call your 
attention, is in the beginning, of the 6th Chap, of this prophecy 
of Isaiah. We there read, that the prophet beheld the 
gWy and majesty of God in vision. <4 I saw also the Lord 
sitiing upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the 
temple." Undoubtedly this was Jehovah, the only true God, 



LECTURE FIRST* 



Now in the 12th Chap, of John's Gospel at the 40th v., it is 
supposed, and I believe rightly, that certain words tittered by 
the prophet in this connection are referred to by the Evangelist. 
" He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart, that 
they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their 
heart, and be converted, and I should heal them/' Then the 
Evangelist immediately adds, v. 41, " These things said Esaias, 
when he saw his glory and spake of him." From this it is 
inferred by Trinitarians, that the Evangelist here declares that 
the person whose glory Isaiah beheld in vision was Christ, and 
therefore that Christ is Jehovah. The inference, I grant, is 
in itself plausible enough. I acknowledge that I cannot abso- 
lutely confute it. I am not surprised, therefore, that those 
who on other grounds firmly believe that Christ is Jevovab, 
should be ready to drew this inference. But I positively deny, 
that we have here any clear, independent, decisive evidence to 
this effect, from the Evangelist John. There are many cir- 
cumstances which render this inference exceedingly doubtful. 
Jt is by no means certain that we have, in our common ver- 
sion, the correct reading of this passage. Some excellent 
ancient versions and manuscripts read, " the glory of God," 
or, " the glory of his God," instead of simply " his glory." 
If this be the true reading, which is not improbable, there i9 
of course no ground for supposing any allusion to Christ. But 
even with our present common reading, it is by no means 
certain that " his glory" means the glory of Christ. The 
name of Christ is not mentioned in the verses immediately 
preceding. The strict grammatical reference of the pronoun 
" his," would be to the word f* Lord," occurring twice in the 
38th verse, and which undoubtedly means Jehovah. But lastly, 
even if the Evangelist does mean the glory of Christ, it does 
not follow, with any certainty, that he means to affirm that 
Isaiah saw the glory of Christ, when he saw the glory of 
Jehovah in vision. The Evangelist quotes two passages from 
the prophecy of Isaiah, the tirst of which is from the 53d 
Chapter ; where the prophet is unquestionably foretelling the 
future glory of Christ. The Evangelist may allude entirely to 
this passage; or he may only mean, in a general way, that Isaiah 
foresaw and foretold the glory of the future Messiah. On all 
these grounds, I deny that there is here any clear and decisive 
evidence that Christ is Jehovah. The passage is altogether 
doubtful and ambiguous. This is all that I need contend for. 
And here, pardon me if I offer vou a word of advice. When you 
hear any person insisting, that it is utterly impossible to under- 
stand a certain passage of Scripture in any sense different from 
that which he himself puts upon it, and yet you know that 
it has in fact long been differently understood by other persons, 
be cautious how you give implicit credence to such confident 
declarations. Tt is surely probable that they who make them 
are mistaken. If you see, indeed, that they are undoubtedly 



20 



LECTURE FIRST. 



right; then believe them ; but do not rely entirely on their 
vehement assertions. 

I have time only to examine one other passage of Scripture, 
and that very briefly for the present. It shall be the 1st Chap- 
ter and 1st v. of the Gospel according to John. " In the begin- 
ing was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word 
was God." This is said to be a passage which Unitarians have 
never been able to make anything of. I am far from thinking that 
it is so. I am ready to admit, indeed, that the interpretation of 
this passage which I myself adopt, as a Unitarian, is not entirely 
free from difficulties. But then I contend that this is the case 
with all interpretations which have ever been proposed ; and of 
all, the common Trinitarian interpretation seems to me to be 
attended with the most formidable and insurmountable diffi- 
culties. I can discover in it no meaning whatever. Let us 
see. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with 
God, and the Word was God." By the Word, Trinitarians 
understand the Son, the second person of the Godhead. AYhafc 
do they understand by the term God, in the instances in which 
it here occurs ? There are, I apprehend, two different senses 
which Trinitarians commonly assign to this term, God. Some- 
times they understand by it, the Father, the person denomi- 
nated the Father, which I believe it always means in the Scrip- 
tures. Sometimes, however, they understand by it, the Trinity, 
the whole Godhead, as they say, including the three persons, 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Now, I say, let the Trinita- 
rian understand the term God, in this passage, in either of 
these senses, or, if he will, first in one sense and then in 
the other, and still I contend that his interpretatation is sur- 
rounded with great and unavoidable difficulties. First, sup- 
pose the term God here means the Father ; then it will be, " In 
the beginning was the Word, (that is, God the Son,) and God 
the Son was with God the Father, and God the Son was 
God the Father." This, according to their own system, 
is downright heresy. This is confounding the Persons, 
which we are forbidden to do under pain of everlasting 
damnation. But secondly, suppose we take the term God in 
the other Trinitarian sense, as including the three divine per- 
sons. Then the passage will read thus, " In the beginning was 
the word, (that is, God the Son,) and God the Son was with 
God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Ghost, and 
God the Son was God the Father God the Son and God the 
Holy Ghost." This indeed is confusion worse confounded. 
If the former interpretation makes the passage teach heresy, 
this makes it teach absurdity. No man has any fair rightj to 
tell me that, in these observations, I am employing my reason on 
an inscrutable mystery of religion. To my serious convictions, 
the doctrine of the Trinity is not a mystery of true religion, 
but altogether a human invention. I am simply employing my 
reason to ascertain what is, or rather what is not, the true sense 



LECTURE FIRST. 



21 



and teaching of the Holy Scriptures. Let us however suppose, 
as a last resort, that the Trinitarian here understands by 
the term God, either a divine person, a divine being, or, 
deity in the abstract, apart from any particular divine person. 
This is the only method of deriving any sense from the passage 
on the Trinitarian hypothesis. But [ say it is a most des- 
perate method. What authority can be adduced from the 
Scriptures for understanding the terra God in this sense? Im- 
possible ! It is a sense which directly implies the existence of 
a plurality of Gods; just as we use the word man to signify 
humanity in the abstract, or human beings in general, or some 
particular man, which we could not do if there were not a plu- 
rality of men in existence. Such an application of the term 
God was common enough, and proper enough, amongst the 
heathen, who were polytheists. It is entirely unknown to the 
Scriptures, and opposed to the very genius of true and revealed 
religion. 

How then do I myself understand this passage? I 
understand, that by the " Word " is not meant Jesus Christ 
personally, or any other real and distinct person, but the 
operating power and wisdom of God personified, that is to say, 
God himself, even Jehovah, the Father, the only true God. I 
believe that this phraseology, employed in this sense, was 
common in the time of the Evangelist John. The " Word " 
signifies those attributes of God which are manifested in his 
works and ways, and especially in the redemption of mankind 
by Jesus Christ. By the " Word, " in this sense, all "things 
were made;" and at length it " became flesh," or dwelt in and 
was manifested through the man Christ Jesus. We read, in 
other parts of Scripture, that the Father "dwelt in Jesus," and 
" was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself." This is my 
faith. This is the true Unitarian doctrine. I believe that the 
Father, the only true God, dwelt in Jesus Christ, intimately, 
spiritually, mysteriously, if you will; for I do not assume to 
comprehend the height and depth of that holy, ineffable union, 
which existed between the Father of spirits and the illuminated, 
sanctified soul, of the man Christ Jesus ! 

I must now conclude. In the next Lecture, if God spare 
me health and strength, I will enter upon the consideration of 
other passages, which have been recently produced in support 
of the proper deity of Christ. Let me entreat you, in the mean 
time, to consider the subject seriously. I do not aim or expect 
to make any immediate converts. I do not expect any man, 
simply upon what he hears from me, to abandon his old 
religious convictions and embrace mine. All I wish or hope 
for, at present, is to promote a spirit of free enquiry. To this 
end, I wish to convince you, that we Unitarians are not 
altogether such miserable reasoners, or such reckless despisers 
of the word of God, as we are sometime represented. We do 
endeavour to understand the Scriptures, and to build our 
religious faith on the foundation of their teaching. 



22 



LECTURE FIRST. 



Now, my brethren, let us receive and follow the excellent 
advice, which was given us where we were lately assembled 
together. Let us all pray for one another's salvation, and 
contend for that which we believe to be truth in a spirit of love 
and kindness. Knowledge is good; truth is precious; but 
chanty is a divine and heavenly grace. 



LECTURE SECOND. 



MATTHEW, o. 19, v. 16, 17. 

"And behold, one came and said unto him, Good 
Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may 
have eternal life. And he said unto him, Why 
€a llest thou me good? there is none good but one, 
THAT IS, God." 



Neither in this place, my brethren, nor in any other 
passage of Scripture, do I suppose that our Lord Jesus 
Christ ever meant to declare, to give information to his hearers, 
that he himself was not the one Almighty and Everlasting God. 
With my views of his nature, I cannot suppose that, in the 
whole course of his ministry, he ever once thought it necessary 
to make such a declaration, for such a purpose. His hearers 
did not require to be informed of so unquestionable a truth. I 
am persuaded, that the very thought of claiming equality of 
nature with the Infinite and Unchangeable Jehovah, never 
entered his mind ; and as such a claim would also have appeared 
to every soul amongst the Jewish people absurd and impious, 
there never could have been any occasion that our Saviour 
should expressly disavow it. If Trinitarians suppose, 
therefore, that such is the nature of our argument from this 
and similar passages of Scripture, they are greatly mistaken. 
Indeed, I do not rest my Unitarian faith on this, or any other 
isolated text of Scripture. I rest my faith on the broad, 
strong foundations, that there is but one God, that the Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ is God, and that all the arguments 
produced to overthrow this simple doctrine, by proving that 
Jesus Christ himself is God, are totally irrelevant or incon- 
clusive. On these plain grounds I build my Unitarian faith, 
and not exclusively, or chiefly, on the meaning of particular 
texts. Nevertheless, I do believe, even after all the ingenious 
pleading which I have lately heard to the contrary, that 
although it was not meant to be expressly taught, yet that it is 
clearly and reasonably implied in these words, that Jesus Christ 



£4 



LECTURE SECOND. 



himself is not God. In reading this passage to you, my brethren, 
I have taken the liberty to place the emphasis chiefly, bnt not 
altogether, on the word me: " Why callest thou me good?" I hope 
that in doing so I have not offended either your ears or your 
hearts. We have been lately told, indeed, that this is wrong. 
We have been told, that Unitarians always lay the emphasis on 
the wrong word, in reading this passage. Who says so ? Does 
not the right or wrong of the emphasis depend entirely on the 
sense in which you understand the words ? Who, then, shall 
tell me, that I ought not to emphasize the word me, and that I 
ought to emphasize some other word in the sentence, unless he 
can teach me infallibly what is the true meaning of the sentence, 
and unless he has authority to bring my judgment on this point 
into subjection to his own ? It may be very pleasant, to turn 
aside from a dull theological argument, to proffer one's 
opponent a little gratuitous instruction in elocution. But I 
entreat you to remember, my brethren, that this is not argument. 

You must be aware, that there is sometimes much more 
implied in a person's words, than is absolutely expressed; and 
frequently it is implied, not expressed, because of the very 
certainty of its being understood. If I promise to meet a 
friend at a certain hour to morrow, all that I express is my 
intention of then meeting him. But it is implied in this 
promise, that T expect to be alive to morrow, to enjoy my usual 
health, and to retain the blessing of memory. Not a syllable of 
this required to be expressed, because from the nature of the 
promise it was sure to be instantly understood. In the same 
manner, then, I apprehend that when our Saviour said to this 
Jew, " Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, 
that is God, 1 ' although he did not mean to declare, and for the 
reasons which I have before stated could never have thought of 
declaring, that he himself was not God, yet that this meaning 
was naturally and clearly implied in his words. 

Trinitarians allege, however, that our argument against the 
deity of Christ from this passage would be sound, if the man 
who addressed Jesas had belived that he was God. But, say 
they, this was by no means the case. He was an unconverted 
Jew. He did not know that Christ was God. He looked upon 
him only as a creature. Therefore, however proper it might 
be in itself to address Christ as the Supremely Good, yet it 
was wrong in this man, on account of his want of faith. Now 
this is surely a very bold evasion. Not to insist, that it is an 
entirely gratuitous assumption, it must surely appear very 
strange that our Lord, in his reply, did not utter one word to 
disabuse this man of his error, but rather employed language 
which, to speak in the mildest terms, was not ill adapted to 
confirm him in his awful ignorance. Is it consistent with the 
wisdom and compassion of our Saviour, to suppose that, when 
there was such an opportunity of teaching one of the most 
essential truths of his Gospel, he would not only entirely pass it 



LECTURE SECOND. 



25 



by, but even speak in a manner calculated to establish and 
perpetuate the error of the man with whom he was conversing? 
I cannot think this probable, scarcely possible. I cannot think 
thus of my Saviour without necessity ; nor do I envy those who 
feel themselves to be under such a necessity. When I am 
referred, for a parallel passage, to the place where our Saviour 
says to the Pharisees, (Matthew, 22 Ch. 42 v.) " What 
think ye of Christ? whose son is he ? If David then call him 
Lord, how is he his son ?" I do not think that I am referred to 
a strictly parallel passage ; because our Saviour does not there 
go on to say that another person, not himself, was David's Son, 
as he does here appear to declare that, not himself, but another 
person, even God, is alone Supremely Good. After the fullest 
consideration of all to which I have recently listened, therefore, 
I do still believe that our Saviour here meant, not indeed to 
teach, (for there was in those times no occasion to teach so 
undeniable a truth,) but fully to imply, that he himself is not 
the one infinite and everlasting God. 

Let us now proceed with our general argument. The 
Trinitarian proposes to discuss with me this question, W r hether 
our Lord Jesus Christ be himself truly and properly God ? 
Suffer me to recall to your minds the form in which we have 
agreed to put the argument, and the stage of it to which we 
have already advanced. We set out with the admission, that 
there is but one God. This we agree to consider as, in the 
language of mathematicians, a postulate, an axiom, a first 
principle not to be questioned. And, amidst our diversities 
of opinion on points which, I fear, we but very imperfectly 
comprehend, let us consider what a precious truth we here have 
for our common inheritance as Christians. " To us there is but 
one God 1" What a sublime work did the inspired messengers of 
heaven perform, when they gave this great and fruitful principle 
of religious truth a firm establishment upon the earth ! — when, in 
the midst of the grossest polytheism and superstition, they 
pointed the attention of men upwards to the throne of the One 
Infinite, Eternal, and Unchangeable God, the Maker of heaven 
and earth, the Father of all intelligent creatures, and cried 
aloud to the idolatrous nations of the world, " The Lord our 
God is One, and thou shalt love the Lord thv God, with all thy 
heart and with all thy soul!" How dearly ought we to prize 
this truth, my brethren, how jealously should we preserve it 
from corruption ! Let us hope that we shall not find it 
necessary to leave the smallest cloud, not even the shadow of a 
shade, to obscure its glorious brightness. 

But what is the next stage in our argument? T was called 
upon, as a Unitarian, to prove that the Father is God. I gladly 
undertook the task ; and I brought under your notice a great 
number and variety of passages of Scripture, in which the 
person denominated the Father is plainly and expressly 
recognised as God. I shewed you that this is the peculiar and 



D 




26 



LECTURE SECOND. 



hallowed name of God, under the Christian dispensation. 
This is the name by which the true God is almost uniformly 
addressed by our Saviour himself, as the Object of his devout 
trust, worship, and obedience. This name of God was evidently 
associated in the mind of Jesus, as it may and should be in our 
minds, not with the notion of any personal distinction in the 
godhead, but with the affections of filial reverence, gratitude and 
love, towards an Almighty and All-merciful Parent, Preserver, 
and Benefactor. 

I advanced even beyond this in my argument. I brought 
under your notice several passages of scripture, where the 
Father is expressly mentioned by name, and where the Son, 
our Lord Jesus Christ, is also mentioned as a distinct person 
from the Father, and yet in those very passages the Father is 
solemnly declared to be " the only true God," the God whom 
alone we Christians are to acknowledge and worship. 

Well, then, having done all this, have I not proved that the 
Father alone is God, and therefore that his Son Jesus Christ is 
not God? T am answered, No; All this is nothing to the 
purpose. Why not? How can this be ? Because, I am told, 
there remain other passages of Scripture, in which the titles, 
attributes, and works of Deity, are ascribed to our Lord Jesus 
Christ ; and from these passages we must infer that he likewise 
is truly God. I will not shrink from the consideration of 
these passages. I will proceed with the task allotted to me. 
But observe; I enter upon this branch of the discussion under 
protest. I protest against its being considered absolutely ne- 
cessary, in order to the establishment of my own simple faith 
in the unity of God. It is necessary only to disentangle this 
great truth from the subtilties and obscurities in which it has 
been involved by Trinitarian systems of theology. I contend 
that, it having been clearly demonstrated that there is but one 
God, and that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is God, it 
thereupon becomes my duty and yours, either to interpret ail 
parts of Scripture, especially all ambiguous passages, in a sense 
consistent with these great truths already established, or even to 
acknowledge, if that should be found necessary, that there are 
some few passages which we cannot at present clearly and fully 
understand. This, I maintain, is the only safe and rational 
method of interpreting the Scriptures. And permit me, my 
brethren, before I go on with the argument, to pause here and 
contemplate for a moment the simplicity and beauty of the true 
Christian faith, as far as we have hitherto proceeded. " One 
God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ 
Jesus. " How plain, how reasonable, how harmonious within 
itself, how satisfying to every humble believer's mind and 
heart. One divine intelligence ! One God of infinite and ever- 
lasting perfection ! The mind of man is lifted up, by the influ- 
ences of such a faith, to the region of sublime thoughts and 
holy aspirations! We feel that it is enough, The heart 



LECTURE SECOND. 



27 



naturally yearns for this, but it will contain no more. We are 
conscious that either to add to, or to take away from, this belief, 
would be a serious injury to us as moral and religious crea- 
tures. To veil and darken it, is to put out the very light of 
our souls. Farewell, then, for a time, beautiful and glorious 
Religion ! I am constrained, in your defence, to plunge into 
a labyrinth of human fancies concerning three persons in one 
God ; but I trust that my soul is not about to be weaned from 
you for ever, that I shall return to you again, after traversing 
these gloomy paths of error, with unshaken fidelity and una- 
bated love, again to rejoice my heart with the contemplation 
of your divine simplicity ! 

I proceed now to examine other passages of Scripture, which 
the Trinitarian contends warrant the inference that the Son also 
is God. But before I do this, I wish to be indulged with a 
word or two of explanation, respecting what I said, in the 
former Lecture, on the first verses of John's Gospel. I am told 
that I did not fully develope my views of this important passage. 
I can easily believe this. I have no doubt, that if these Lectures 
should be replied to, this will be one of the principal points of 
attack. Be it so. Let it be attacked, and I will then defend it 
more at large. This is not the first, nor the second, nor the tenth 
time, that I have carefully considered the Trinitarian and 
Unitarian interpretations of this passage ; and I am well per- 
suaded, that the latter interpretation, as against the former, is 
capable of a satisfactory defence. Nur have I any fear, that I 
shall be able to defend it after it has deen attacked, even better 
than now; at least with a better chance of satisfying my hearers. 
They will then see, and I myself shall see, what are the chief 
objections to which the Unitarian interpretation is thought to 
be exposed. 

The next controverted passage to which I call your attention, 
is in the 9th. chap, and 5th v. of the Epistle to the Romans. 
We must read the preceding verse. The Apostle is speaking 
of the Jews, his own kinsmen according to the flesh : " Who 
are Israelites, to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, 
and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service 
of God, and the promises ; whose are the fathers, and of whom 
as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over ail, God 
blessed for ever. Amen." Here, according to our common 
version, Christ appears to be denominated " God over all 
blessed for ever." No doubt, if it were certain that the Apostle 
meant to apply this expression to Christ, it would be one of 
the strongest arguments for his proper deity. I will first state 
to you, frankly, what is the Unitarian answer to this argument; 
trusting to you, as I am sure I may, to wait for my reasons 
before you pronounce judgment. We propose, then, simplyto 
alter the punctuation of this passage, and to take the latter 
words as a separate sentence, so as to make them apply, not 
to Christ, but to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
d 2 



28 



LECTURE SECOND. 



to Him who is known, on other grounds, to he God over aM 
blessed for ever. In this way, the verse will read thus : 
" Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the 
flesh Christ came." Here we would place a period, or at least a 
colon. The remaining words may then be taken separately, 
either as a doxology, and translated thus, " God, who is over 
all, be blessed for ever, Amen ;" — or otherwise, (which method 
seems to me preferable,) they may be taken as a simple asser- 
tion, and translated thus : " He who was over all, 5 ' (that is, the 
Author of all those blessings and privileges of the Israelites, 
which had just been mentioned,) " was God, blessed for ever." 
Now, I can imagine some persons ready to say; " This indeed 
is a strange liberty you are taking with the Scriptures ! What 
right have you thus to alter the punctuation, and to break up 
one sentence into two ?" I answer, with all deference, that we 
have precisely the same right to do this, as Trinitarians have 
to maintain the existing punctuation and method of reading 
the passage. Every intelligent man knows, that our present 
punctuation of the Scriptures is not the work of the original, 
inspired writers. The most ancient manuscripts have no punc- 
tuation, nor even any space between the words. All this, 
therefore, is entirely the work of uninspired Editors and 
Translators. I would remark, that the manner in which we 
propose to read this passage, has the sanction of such great 
scholars as Erasmus, Grotius, Wetstein, Le Clere, and others. 
You will perhaps hear it said, that such a proposal betrays a 
gross ignorance of the Greek language ; that it is wholly irrecon- 
cilable' with the grammatical structure of the passage. I have 
already often considered these objections ; and I now beg leave 
to say, in anticipation of their being repeated, that I am firmly 
persuaded of their being untenable. At all events, this is the 
true point of the controversy concerning the passage, — 
Whether it must necessarily apply to Christ? and therefore 
allow me to ask you what fair object any man can have, in 
completely passing over this point, and proceeding merely to 
shew that there are no less than four distinct attributes of 
deity here mentioned ? What is all this to the purpose? Yet 
this is what we have lately heard. But then it was further 
argued, that the Apostle must here intend to speak of the deity 
of Christ, or there would be no meaning in his words, when 
he says that Christ came of the Israelites "as concerning the 
flesh." We were told, that he must have intended to contrast 
the human nature of Christ with his divine nature. Now, my 
brethren, do look back only to the 3rd verse of this same 
Chapter, where the Apostle uses the very same words 
respecting himself, " My kinsmen according to the flesh ;" in 
the original, the very same words as occur in the 5th verse. 
Whatever the Apostle meant here respecting himself, he may 
surely mean the same thing in the 5th verse respecting Christ, 
He doubtless means, both concerning himself and his heavenly 



LECTURE SECOND. 



29 



Master, that although they were Israelites by natural birth , they 
were greatly superior to them in spiritual privileges ; Jesus 
in the very highest degree, as the chosen Son of God, and the 
Apostle in an inferior degree, as his faithful and inspired 
servant. 

The next passage which I shall examine, is in the 1st Ch. 
and 8th v. of the Epistle to the Hebrews : " But unto the Son 
he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever ; a sceptre of 
righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." I would first 
observe, that there is no evidence in the original that this 
should be considered as a direct address t3 the Son. It seems 
so, indeed, in our version ; but the word irgos, translated 
" unto," properly signifies, " concerning," " with respect to," 
" in regard to." In the 7th verse, our translators themselves 
have rendered it "of," in the sense of " concerning:" " And 
of (tt^o^,) the angels he saith," that is, " concerning the angels." 
We must understand the 8th verse, therefore, not as a direct 
address to the Son, but only as a quotation from the old 
Testament which the writer of this Epistle declares in some 
way concerns the Son. The passage is taken from the 45th 
Psalm, where it is commonly supposed, and I think rightly, to 
be applied to Solomon. The Psalm appears to have been 
written on occasion of the marriage of that king, with the 
daughter of the king of Egypt. If therefore our present 
translation of this passage were the only admissible trans- 
lation, we must needs understand the word " God," here, 
in that inferior sense, in which you know it is sometimes 
employed in Scripture, when applied to Princes, Rulers, and 
Judges. I may mention, that a learned Bishop of the Church 
of Ireland, (Dr. Young,) in his translation of this Psalm, 
renders the verse, " Thy throne, O Prince, is for ever and 
ever." But I am inclined to believe, that the proper translation 
of the passage may be, " God is thy throne for ever and 
ever;" that is to say, God is the founder, the supporter, the 
protector of thy dominion ; as David calls God his rock, his 
tower, his shield, and his defence. You may perhaps again 
hear it said, that this proposed reading betrays a total ignorance 
of the construction of the Greek language. I believe, 
however, that here again such an objection is untenable. I 
may refer to the 26th v. of 72nd Psalm in the Septuagint (in 
our version it is the 73rd Psalm) for a precisely similar 
construction, and the meaning there undoubtly is, " God is my 
portion for ever." Let us consider, then, how the matter 
stands. We have here an ambiguous passage of Scripture, 
which may be fairly translated either way, " Thy throne, O 
God, is for ever and ever;" or, " God is thy throne for ever and 
ever." How shall we determine which is right? AVe look 
further into the passage ; and we find that the person spoken of 
is a creature, one whom God hath " anointed with the oil of 
gladness above his fellows" because he " loved righteousness 

d 3 



30 



LECTURE SECOND. 



and hated iniquity.*' Ought not this to determine us instantly 
towards that translation, or that understanding of the passage, 
which makes it applicable to a creature? But the Trinitarian 
says, No. It is plain, indeed, that this person is a creature; 
but still, he says, we must understand this ambiguous passage in 
the sense which makes it applicable only to the most High God, 
and then we must infer that the person spoken of had two 
natures, the human and the divine! Now, t ask you 
confidently, if any other subject of human knowledge is ever 
treated in this manner? if any other Book but the Bible was 
ever interpreted in this manner? and if it were, whether we 
should not make absurdity and contradiction appear in almost 
every page ? 

In the further prosecution of the argument, I am assured 
tha£ eternal existence is ascribed to Jesus Christ in the Scrip- 
tures, and that therefore he must be God. For proof of this, 
I am referred to the 5th e, and 2nd v. of the Prophet Micah : — 
" But thou BethlehemfEphratah, though thou be little among the 
thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto 
me that is to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been 
from of old, from everlasting." Allowing, though without 
conclusive evidence, that this relates to Christ, yet how 
does it prove his eternal existence? Perhaps it may be 
thought that there is some mysterious signification in the 
expression " goings forth." I believe there is not. The 
expression signifies properly natural origin or descent. It is 
substantially the same expression as had been used in the 
former part of the verse, when saying that this person should 
" come forth out of Bethlehem." As to the term " everlasting" 
every one who has carefully read the Scriptures knows with 
what latitude it is used. It often means nothing more than 
very ancient, or very durable. This passage, therefore, if it 
relate at all to the Messiah, may signify only that his birth 
should be from a long and remote line of ancestors, as David 
and Abraham ; or that his appearance, his corning into the 
world, had been decreed from of old. In this latter sense, I 
believe, Calvin has interpreted the passage. 

I am next referred, for evidence of the eternity of Christ, 
to the expressions u Alpha and Omega", occuring in the Reve- 
lation of St. John. The first instance is in the 8th v. of the 
1st Chap* " I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the 
ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which 
is to come, the Almighty." In the present approved Edition 
of the Greek Testament, by Griesbach, the word " God" is 
inserted after the word "Lord," — "saith the Lord God." 
There is no evidence whatever, that this was uttered by Christ. 
He has not been represented as speaking in the preceding 
verses. The sentence appears to be introduced abruptly, in 
imitation, I imagine, of the prophet Isaiah. It doubtless 
relates to Jehovah, who is known to be the Lord God Almighty. 



LECTURE SECOND. 



31 



The second instance occurs in the 11th verse of the same 
Chapter, " Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the 
last." Here these words are undoubtedly spurious, and are 
rejected as such from the text of Griesbach. The only other 
instance is in the 13th v. of the 22nd Chap. " I am Alpha 
and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." 
Here again, there is no evidence whatever that these words 
are uttered by Christ. The last speaker, in the preceding 
verses, is the Angel whom John would have worshipped, but 
he refused to be worshipped. Christ does not begin to speak 
until the sixteenth verse. The expressions are evidently in- 
troduced here, as they are in the beginning of the book, abruptly, 
and relate to Jehovah the Lord God Almighty. Neither do I 
think it can be shewn, that, even when applied to God, these 
expressions are meant to declare His eternity. They would 
seem to be very unsuitable expressions for such a purpose. 
Alpha and Omega are the names of the first and last letters 
of the Greek Alphabet ; but in eternity there is no first or last, 
no beginning or ending. I apprehend that the expressions are 
used to signify that God is the Author and Finisher of the series 
of events alluded to in the Prophecy. I am very well aware, 
that our Lord Jesus Christ, though he is not called Alpha and 
Omega, is called the first and the last, several times in this book ; 
and such he evidently was, as being under God the originator, 
conductor, and finisher of all things relating to human salvation, 
and to the affairs of the Christian Church. The manner in 
which he is mentioned, where he is called the first and the 
last, shews plainly that he cannot be God; for it is said " I am 
he that liveth and was dead" 

Next I am assured that Christ must be God, because the 
divine attribute of omnipresence is ascribed to him in the Scrip- 
tures. For proof of this, I am referred to the 18th Chap, and 
20th v. of the Gospel according to Mathew : " Where two or 
three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the 
midst of them." If you examine the context, you will see that 
these words are addressed, not to the disciples of Christ in general, 
at all times and in all places, but to the twelve Apostles in their 
peculiar apostolic capacity. Read the two preceding verses : 
" Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, 
shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, 
.shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of 
you shall agree on earth, as touching anything that they shall 
ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." 
This has never been supposed to apply to Christian disciples in 
general. It evidently relates to the Apostles exclusively. 
They alone had authority to bind or loose on earth. Surely 
then, it is reasonable to understand the promise in the 20th 
verse as having the same special and confined reference. 
Whenever two or three of the Apostles should be assembled to 
deliberate and consult together, respecting any important 



32 



LECTURE SECOND. 



matters connected with their divine apostolic mission, Christ 
would be with them, to afford them all needful guidance and 
assistance. We know that he did exercise a personal, mira- 
culous superintendence over the affairs of his Church during 
that age. You have no right to assume that, in order to the 
fulfilment of such a promise, it was necessary for Christ to be 
omnipresent, or even to be personally present in two places at 
the same time. We have been told, however, that this was the 
very same promise which had been given by Jehovah to the 
Jewish Church, as related in the 20th Ch. and 24th v. of Exodus, 
" An altar of earth thou sbalt make unto me, and shalt 
sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, 
thy sheep and thine oxen : in all places where I record my 
name I will come unto thee and I will bless thee." I can per* 
ceive no very exact parallel between these two promises. But 
if it were so, the circumstance would appear to me to be very 
unfavourable to the Trinitarian interpretation. It is plain, 
that the promise in Exodus cannot relate to the real omnipre- 
sence of Jehovah ; because it is said, " I will come unto thee 
in all places where I record my name," a mode of expression 
which cannot apply to the real omnipresence of God, for in 
this respect he is at all times in all places. It must refer, 
therefore, to the manifestation of his favour, his supporting 
and consoling influence, to the minds of all his sincere wor- 
shippers. In the same sense we may understand the promise 
of Christ to his faithful Apostles, during their arduous trials 
and labours for the conversion of the world. I have no doubt 
that he had power to afford them such support : but this will 
not necessarily imply his omnipresence. You see that the 
difference between what the Scriptures declare, and what the 
Trinitarian infers, is no less than the difference between 
Finite and Infinite. 

Next, I am told that the attribute of omnipotence is 
ascribed to Christ in the Scriptures. In regard to the passage 
in the beginning of John's Gospel, where it is said of the 
" Word," that " all things were made by him," I have already 
given you my reasons for believing that the " Word" does not 
mean Jesus Christ, but the operating power and wisdom of 
God. But lam referred, in proof that this divine attribute 
belongs to Christ, to the 21st. v. of the 3d chap, of the Epistle 
to the Phillipians, u Who shall change our vile body, thiitit 
may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the 
working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto him- 
self." It is first to be observed here, that the expression u all 
things," must frequently be understood in a very limited sense 
in the Scriptures. The apostle John, for instance, (1st Epis- 
tle 2nd Chap. 20 v.), says to the Christian believers, " Ye have 
an unction fron the Holy One, and ye know all things ;" that 
is, all things relating to the truths of the Gospel, all things 
necessary to salvation. There is a similar limitation in the 



LECTURE SECOND. 



33 



meaning of this phrase in many other passages : — its sense, in 
fact, must always be determined by its connection. We may 
understand therefore, in this place, simply that Christ is able 
to subdue all obstacles in the way of accomplishing the great 
work assigned to him by God, to raise the dead, and change 
our vile bodies that they may be fashioned like unto his glori- 
ous body. This power he may have entrusted to him by God, 
without being himself omnipotent. Indeed it is clear to me, 
that when a Trinitarian argues from this passage for the 
natural omnipotence of Christ, he argues against his own 
ackowledged principles. All Trinitarians profess to believe, 
that in his mediatorial work and office, Christ acts altogether in 
subordination to the will and authority of the Father. But is 
not the act of raising the dead, and conducting his faithful fol- 
lowers to immortal blessedness, — is not this a part of his media- 
torial work and office ? And here let me take notice of an 
observation which we have all lately heard. We have been told 
that the mere appointment to an office does not necessarily give 
the power and qualifications required for the execution of it. 
Certainly not. But what does this prove ? What do you mean 
hy this observation, unless you mean to insinuate that God, 
who gave this appointment to Christ, could not at the same time 
endow him with the necessary powers and qualifications for the 
discharge of it. I am sure that you have no just grounds for 
insinuating such a doubt. If I, as a Unitarian, were to talk 
thus, I should lay myself open to your severest rebukes. Beit 
remembered, that there is no dispute between us, whether our 
Saviour was or was not possessed of extraordinary, super- 
human, miraculous, divine power, knowledge, wisdom and 
authority. We all cheerfully admit that he had these qualities. 
The only question is, How was he possessed of them? Were 
they the inherent perfections of his own divine nature? or 
bad they been bestowed on him by the Father, to fit him for the 
discharge of his heavenly office as the appointed Saviour of the 
world ? I firmly believe the latter, on the solemn declaration of 
Christ himself, that all power had been given unto him, and 
that he spake and acted always by the will and commandment 
of the Father. 

Next, we are assured, that Christ must be God, because 
the divine work of creation is ascribed to him in the Scriptures. 
I will now examine what I understand to be the strongest pas- 
sage in support of this assertion. It is in the 16th v. of the 
1st chap, of the Epistle to the Colossians : " For by him were 
all things created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, 
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or 
principalities, or powers : all things were created by him and 
for him." Here again, I will first state plainly the interpre- 
tation which 1 mean to advocate, relying on your candour to 
wait for my reasons, before you pronounce judgment against 
me. I maintain, then, that this language may and should be 



34 



LECTURE SECOND. 



understood, in perfect conformity with the use of similar phra- 
seology in the Scriptures, not of proper material creation, but 
of that new moral creation, the moral and spiritual regenera- 
tion of the world, effected by Christ through the influence of 
his Gospel. In the first place, there can be no doubt that the 
words creation, and to create, are often used in the Scriptures 
in this moral sense, especially to describe the effects of the Gos- 
pel. In the 19th v. of the 59th chap, of Isaiah, Jehovah is 
represented as saying, " I create the fruit of the lips ; Peace, 
peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near." In this 
instance, the work described as a creation is of precisely the 
same kind, as that which is wrought upon all men by sincere 
faith in Jesus Christ. The very same expressions, indeed, are 
applied by the Apostle Paul (Ephesians chap. 2. v. 170 to the 
regenerated condition of the Jewish and Gentile believers, 
" Peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were 
nigh." Another passage in Isaiah (chap. 65, v. 17 and 18), is 
even more favourable to my purpose. Speaking, as most 
Christians believe, of the future age and dispensation of the 
Gospel, Jehovah declares, " Behold, I create new Heavens 
and a new Earth, and the former shall not be remembered nor 
come into mind. But be ye glad, and rejoice for ever in that 
which I create" ; or rather, as it is rendered by Bishop 
Lowth, " Ye shall rejoice and exult in the age to come which I 
create." Here, then, in the words of Prophecy, we have a Scrip- 
tural key for the interpretation of all those passages, in which 
creation may seem to be ascribed to our Saviour. Accord- 
ingly we find that, in the New Testament also, this phraseo- 
logy is used, where it is impossible not to understand it in a 
figurative and moral sense. Paul, in writing to the Ephesians, 
says, (Chap. 2. v. 10.) " We are his workmanship created in, 
(or by) Christ Jesus unto good works." Further on in the same 
Epistle, (Chap. 4. v. 23 and 24), he writes thus, " Be re- 
newed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, 
which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness". 
In his 2nd Epistle to the Corinthians, (Chap. 5. v. 17.) he also 
says, " Therefore if any man be in Christ he is a new 
creature." There is no mistaking these passages. Men are 
here undoubtedly said to be created by Jesus Christ. But the 
allusion is evidently, not to their original, proper creation, but 
to the moral regeneration of their hearts and characters. No 
candid adversary, therefore, can object to our method of inter- 
preting the passage in question, that it is contrary to the use 
of such phraseology in the Scriptures. We are surely bound to 
adopt this interpretation, in this particular place, unless it can 
be shewn that there is something in the passage itself which 
renders it absurd to do so. I can perceive nothing of the kind. 
The whole context relates to the moral influences and blessings 
of the Gospel. Immediately before, we are said to have " re- 
demption through the blood of Christ, forgiveness of sins." — 



LKCTU&E SECOND. 



35 



Immediately after, he is declared to be u the head," not of the 
universe, but " of the Church, the first born from the dead". 
Neither can I see anything in the 16th verse, by itself considered, 
which should lead us to a different conclusion. With regard 
to the expression " all things", I have already shewn you that 
it must often be understood in a limited sense, and must have 
its meaning' determined by the context. With regard to the 
expressions " heaven and earth," we have already seen, from 
the passage in Isaiah, that they may be used in reference 
simply to a moral regeneration. But then we have been re- 
cently asked, as though it were a decisive objection to the 
Unitarian interpretation of this passage, whether we do not 
know that the " things in heaven," (by which it is assumed are 
meant the angels,) never sinned, never fell, and therefore never 
could need to be regenerated by Christ? Now, my brethren, 
do trust to your Bibles, and not to the confident tone in which, 
any man can put a question. Do look forward only to the 19th 
and 20th verses of this same Chapter, and you will see that, 
whatever be meant by the expression, the " things in heaven," 
as well as the " things in earth," certainly did stand in need 
of regeneration and reconciliation by Christ : "For it pleased 
the Father that in him should all fullness dwell : And having 
made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile 
all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in 
earth or things in heaven." Again, in the 9th and 10th verses 
of the 1st Ch. of the Epistle to the Ephesians, we have similar 
language: " Having made known unto us the mystery of his 
will, according to his pood pleasure which he hath purposed in 
himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of times, he 
might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which 
are in heaven and which are on earth." Now, I am not bound, 
any more than the Trinitarian, to shew precisely what is meant 
by " things in heaven ;" but you see that, whatever is meant, 
the things in heaven as well as things on earth did require to 
be created anew, or regenerated by Christ. 

Next, we are assured that Christ must be God because he 
is represented in the Scriptures as the proper object of ivorship. 
I take leave to object to this, that it cannot be safely raised 
into an independent argument, because the term " worship" is 
employed with so much latitude in the Scriptures, that we can 
in no case infer the nature of a person from the simple circum- 
stance of his being said to be worshipped ; but must in all cases 
judge of the kind of worship intended, from what we know, on 
other grounds, of the nature and dignity of the person. You 
are aware, that formerly the term " worship" was employed in 
our own language with much greater freedom than at present. 
You know that, in the Marriage Service of the Church of 
England, the husband promises to worship the wife; that is, to 
pay her all due respect. There is a similar latitude in the 
meaning and application of the verb irgoo-wvew, which in 



36 



LECTURE SECOND, 



jn the Scriptures is translated " worship." It is often used in 
reference to homage paid to human beings; to other human 
beings as well as to Jesus Christ. Indeed, no one supposes, not 
even Trinitarians, that most of the worship which is said to 
have been rendered to Christ whilst on earth, was proper divine 
worship, rendered to him as God. When we are told (Matthew 
8th c. 2nd v.) that a "leper came and worshipped him;" and 
again, (in the 9th c. and 18th v.) that "there came a certain 
ruler and worshipped him ;" no one can reasonably imagine, 
that these persons considered the being who stood visibly 
before them, clothed in flesh and blood, to be the infinite and 
immutable God, and that they worshipped him as such ! They 
only meant to pay him, according to Eastern customs, that 
kind and degree of obeisance, to which they thought him 
entitled as a great and venerable person. We read, in the 
parable of the king who took account of his servants, (Matthew 
18th c. 26th v.) that " the servant fell down and worshipped his 
lord, saying, Have patience with me and I will pay thee all." 

In proof of the great latitude with which the term 44 wor- 
ship" is employed in the Scriptures, I may refer you to the 29th 
c. and 20th v. of the 1st Book of Chronicles, where the whole 
congregation of Israel are represented as bowing down their 
heads, and worshipping at the same time the Lord Jehovah and 
king David, but of course in different senses, with different 
kinds of homage, worshipping the one as God, the other as 
king merely: "And David said to all the congregation, Now 
bless the Lord your God. And all the congregation blessed the 
Lord God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and 
worshipped the Lord, and the king." 

You perceive, therefore, that worship, as the term is 
employed in the Scriptures, may be given to others besides 
God; and therefore you cannot justly infer, from its being said 
that Christ was worshipped, that he is truly and properly God, 
unless you can clearly prove, from some other circumstances^ 
that the worship offered to him, and accepted by him, was 
proper divine worship, the worshipping of him as God. All 
the instances advanced in proof of this, appear to me utterly to 
fail. It is said, for example, (Hebrews 1st c. 6 v.) that when he 
was brought into the world, " all the angels of God were 
commanded to worship him." But this will not establish, nor 
help at all to establish, the doctrine of his proper deity, unless 
you can prove that it was as God the angels were commanded 
to worship him ; of which there is no evidence in the passage 
itself, nor in any other part of the Scriptures. I believe, that 
the angels were instructed to do only that, which I myself am 
most desirous of doing, to pay to Christ all due homage and 
reverence as the best beloved Son of God, and the appointed 
Saviour of the world. We are also referred to the example of 
Stephen, (recorded in Acts, 7th c. 59th and 60th vs.) who is 
represented, in his dying moments, as calling upon Christ and 



LECTURE SECOND. 



37 



saying', "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," It is here to be 
observed, that Stephen at this moment beheld Jesus, (v. 56) as a 
manifest object of his senses, as the " Son of man, standing* on the 
right hand of God." It should seem to be impossible, therefore, 
that he could, in these circumstances, have regarded Jesus as 
God, and have worshipped him as such. He doubtless consi- 
dered him as his beloved Lord and Master, who had been cruci- 
fied and raised from the dead; and, actually beholding him, 
committed his dying spirit into his hands, as any other disciple 
might do, in like circumstances, without meaning for a moment 
to worship him as God. Proper divine worship, is the worship 
of a Spiritual and therefore Invisible Being. It is also to be 
remarked, that there is no proof that the last words uttered by 
Stephen, (v. 60,) " Lord lay not this sin to their charge," were 
addressed to Jesus Christ. We read, at the beginning of this 
verse, that the dying Martyr now " kneeled down," (he had 
therefore hitherto been standing, a posture in which, I appre- 
hend, no Jew would have offered solemn prayer to Jehovah,) 
but he now " kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, 
Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." These last words, 
therefore, were probably addressed to Jehovah, the only true 
God, and not to Jesus Christ, [f we, my brethren, should ever 
be favoured with a visible manifestation of the presence of Jesus, 
as Stephen was, we may then offer an urgent request to him, 
without thereby intending to offer him proper divine worship. 
As circumstances are, the example of Jesus himself, in his 
dying moments, is much more suitable for our imitation, than 
the example of Stephen. Our Saviour was situated as we are, 
having the invisible God alone for the object of his trust, and he 
said, " Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." 

I have no doubt, that during the apostolic age, the Apostles 
and other disciples of Christ sometimes presented their requests 
to him. This they might do without at all regarding him as 
God, or meaning to worship him with supreme divine worship. 
They knew that, in that age, he was personally and miracu- 
lously engaged in watching over and conducting the affairs of 
his Spiritual Church. If any believe, that the relation between 
Christ and his disciples is still such as to warrant these requests, 
I say not that it will be absolutely improper to offer them ; but 
even this may be done without any necessary recognition of the 
proper deity of Christ. Worship, petition, entreaty, — as we 
have seen from many Scriptural examples, — may be offered to 
other persons besides God. Divine worship, the supreme 
homage of the soul, can be rightly offered to no one but to Him 
who is declared to be " the only true God," even the Father. 

I apprehend that there is good evidence in support of the 
opinion, that during the earliest periods of the Christian Church 
our Saviour was not usually considered as the proper object of 
prayer, or divine worship. For proof of this, I will read you a 
passage from the writings of Origen, who lived in the third 



38 



LECTURE SECOND. 



century, and was then one of the greatest lights and ornaments 
of the Christian Church. He says, " If we understand what 
prayer is, it will appear that it is never to be offered to any ori- 
ginated being, not to Christ himself, but only to the God and 
Father of all, to whom our Saviour himself prayed and taught 
us to pray. For, when his disciples asked him, 'Teach us to 
pray,' he did not teach them to pray to himself, but to the 
Father. Conformably to what he said, "Why callest thou me 
good ? there is none good, except one, God, the Father," (you 
perceive, my brethren, that I have good and ancient authority 
for understanding my text, in this Lecture, as I have explained 
it) " how could he say otherwise than, ' Why dost thou pray to 
me? Prayer, as ye learn from the Holy Scriptures, is to be 
offered to the Father only, to whom I myself pray/ Let us 
then, attending to what was said by Jesus, and all having the 
same mind, pray to God through him, without any division re- 
specting the mode of prayer. But are we not divided, if some 
pray to the Father and some to the Son? Those who pray to 
the Son, whether they do or do not pray to the Father also, fall 
into a gross error, in their great simplicity, through want of 
judgment and examination." De Oratione, 6pp. I. pp. 222-224. 

And now, my brethren, having examined so many passages 
of Scripture, permit me to ask you one plain and serious 
question. Is it true, as you and I have recently been told, that 
there is precisely the same kind of evidence for the proper 
deity of Christ, as for the deity of the Father? I say nothing 
of the disproportion, in point of number, between the passages 
in which the Father is clearly recognised as God, and those 
which, by the utmost ingenuity, will afford even inferential evi- 
dence for the deity of the Son. But I ask you, Is it true that 
there is precisely the same kind of evidence, equally direct, 
equally strong, equally explicit and indubitable ? When I ask 
this question, I do not presume that you agree with me, in my 
understanding of all the controverted passages. T will suppose 
you still to adhere to the common interpretation of those pas- 
sages. I will suppose you ready to answer me somewhat in this 
manner; * Yes, all this is well enough, as far as it goes ; I see 
that you have something, not altogether unreasonable, to say in 
favour of a different understanding of tho?e passages ; and this 
may be sufficient to satisfy you as a Unitarian ; but for my own 
part, as a Trinitarian, I still think that the popular way of un- 
derstanding the controverted texts is the right way, and I shall 
still abide by that application and that meaning of them to 
which my mind has always been accustomed." Very well, my 
friends ; be it so. But again I ask you to forget the vehement 
assertions which we have lately heard, and to say in the since- 
rity of your own minds, whether it is true that we have the very 
same kind of evidence, equally express and unambiguous, for the 
independent deity of Christ, as for the deity of the Father ? Is 
this thQ kind of evidence, the best and the only kind of evidence, 



LECTURE SECOND. 



39 



on which we all rest our blissful conviction, that there is one 
God and Father of all, even the God and Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ? I am surprised to hear any man venture on such 
an extraordinary assertion. I say confidently, No. Praised be 
the name of God, even the Father, that he has not left us with- 
out far better witness of his existence, and his infinite perfec- 
tions, and his all-merciful purposes towards men. Let me 
entreat you, my brethren, to look closely into the nature of this 
alledged evidence for the proper deity of Christ. You produce 
a passage, for example, from the prophecy of Isaiah, in which 
you think that Christ is clearly denominated " Mighty God," 
and " Everlasting Father." I shew you that, according to the 
use of the very same words in other parts of Scripture, and upon 
the testimony of learned men, Trinitarians as well as Unita- 
rians, those expressions may be fairly understood to mean only 
that Christ, besides being " Wonderful, Counseller, and Prince 
of Peace," was also to be a Mighty Ruler or Potentate, and the 
Author or Founder of an everlasting dispensation. Well then, 
if it be so, all your evidence vanishes here ; at least, all cer- 
tainty, all proof vanishes. You adduce, again, a passage in 
which Christ appears to be styled " God over all, blessed for 
ever." I shew you that, by simply altering the punctuation, 
which is entirely the work of uninspired men, the passage be- 
comes applicable, not to Christ at all, but to his God and 
Father. Then, if it be so, here likewise all your evidence 
vanishes. You bring forward another passage, in which the 
Son appears to be directly addressed as God ; " Thy throne, O 
God, is for ever and ever." I shew you that, by simply adopt- 
ing a different translation, which no reasonable man can deny 
to be admissible, the sentiment becomes this : " God is thy 
throne for ever and ever," the founder and supporter of thy 
dominion, as David calls God his rock, and his shield. Here 
therefore again, your evidence vanishes, your proof is gone. 
You next appeal to passages in which you think the Eternity of 
Christ is declared, because he is called Alpha and Omega, I 
shew you that in one of those passages, the words so much 
relied on are spurious. I shew you that in the two passages in 
which they are genuine, we do not read that they were uttered 
by Jesus Christ. He is not the speaker in those places. They 
are spoken by the Lord God Almighty, who, I have a right to 
assume, till you prove the contrary, is the Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, because he is known, on other grounds, to be the 
Lord God Almighty, Here therefore again, all your evidence 
vanishes. And once more, you refer to a passage in which you 
think the work of proper creation is ascribed to Jesus Christ. I 
shew you that, when we look carefully into the meaning of 
similar phraseology in many other parts of Scripture, we find 
that all this may be fairly understood of the moral regeneration 
or the world, through the spiritual reign of Jesus Christ. Here 
therefore all your proof likewise vanishes. I might proceed in 



40 



LECTURE SECOND. 



the same manner to notice all the other passages which I have 
examined ; and, a fortiori, all those still more ambiguous pas- 
sages which I have not examined. I demand again, Is this the 
best sort and the only sort of evidence, on which we believe 
there is one God even the Father ? I do not ask you to believe 
as I believe ; that is between God and your own consciences. 
But I do ask you to display a little charity and forbearance to- 
wards us, your fellow Christians, who feel ourselves constrained 
by a solemn regard to the great incontrovertible principles of 
the Gospel, and feel ourselves justified on grounds not only of 
reason but of Scripture, in receiving these passages in a 
different sense from that in which you have been taught to 
understand them. This, at all events, is the foundation of our 
Unitarian faith. It being certain, that there is but one God; 
and it being certain that the Father is God, and it being certain 
that our Lord Jesus Christ is a distinct person from the Father, 
and the proposition that, nevertheless, our Lord Jesus Christ is 
himself God being apparently inconsistent with these great, 
settled principles of divine truth, and the evidence for this pro- 
position being to our minds so insufficient, — these, I say, are 
the true foundations of our belief in the strict Unity, and Sole 
Deity, of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 
Whether these reasons shall appear satisfactory to you or not, 
you will henceforth know them ; and I trust you will always 
remember them, whenever you may hear us slandered as blind 
and conceited worshippers of our own reason. I demand on 
these grounds, (not indeed that our opinions should be embraced 
by a single mind that is not convinced of their truth, 
certainly not,) — but I demand on these grounds, in the 
name of justice and candour, that it shall be allowed 
that our reasons for our Unitarian faith are not utterly 
futile and ridiculous, and that our motives for embracing 
and holding fast by this faith, in the midst of so much un- 
merited obloquy, may not be utterly disreputable to us, as men 
and as Christians. 

In conclusion let me offer one serious consideration to the 
thoughts of my Trinitarian brethren. Consider, my friends, 
how full, how ample and how explicit, the evidence ought to 
be, for such a doctrine as you require us to embrace. Tnat 
there is one God, of Almighty power, of Infinite wisdom and 
goodness, " all nature cries aloud." That the Maker and Father 
of all creatures is God, and that he is to be worshipped and 
obeyed, was known already to the Jews, and dimly recognised 
by the heathen. A simple, clear acknowledgment of this 
great principle of all true religion, might therefore have been 
a sufficient foundation whereon to build the glorious superstruc- 
ture of Christianity. But, that the Son is likewise God, that 
the Holy Ghost is likewise God, that there are three divine 
persons, and yet but one God, — this, you must allow to be an 
entirely new truth, if it be a truth, which was first promulgated 



LECTURE SECOND* 



41 



and established by the Gospel. And, since the everlasting 
salvation of men is thought to depend on the belief of this 
mystery, we might surely expect to find it declared in. 
Scripture in the fullest and most unambiguous manner. Is it not 
so? Consider what is the nature of your premises, and what the 
boldness and vastness of the conclusion which you venture 
to draw from them: Nothing less than that there are three 
persons who are each properly God, which wherein it differs 
from the belief of three Gods, you yourselves must determine ; 
nothing less than that he who was born of a woman, and died 
on the cross, was the Almighty Maker of heaven and earth. 
Ah! Trinitarians sometimes warn us of what they consider to 
be our daring and rashness, in the free interpretation of the 
Scriptures. I always listen to such warnings with perfect re- 
spect, whenever I see reason to believe that they proceed from 
men of sincere and pious hearts. But Trinitarians must bear 
with me in return, whilst I tell them solemnly, that no words 
can adequately express my astonishment at their conduct, when 
I see that they do not hesitate, on such grounds as I have now 
partly examined, to mar the divine simplicity of that Apostolic 
creed, that there is "one God, and one Mediator between God 
and men, the man Christ Jesus." 

I am sorry, my Christian friends, to have detained you so 
long. It is my intention to deliver one more Lecture, in order 
to bring my own argument to a fair conclusion. In that 
Lecture I shall more directly give my own positive reasons for 
my Unitarian belief concerning the person of Christ. I shall, 
as it were, more immediately state my own case. Hitherto, as 
you must have observed, I have stood almost entirely on the 
defensive. Some of my friends think that I have done so too 
much ; and perhaps they are right; but I suspect that, in forming 
this opinion, they consult their own feelings rather than the feel- 
ings of Trinitarians. My judgment dictates to me, that if I had 
not first shewn a disposition to examine the arguments of my 
opponent, I should have had no chance of obtaining an impar- 
tial hearing for my own arguments. But as I have done this, 
to the utmost extent which time and circumstances will allow, 
I do now respectfully claim of all, who wish to form an 
impartial estimate of the evidence on this important question, 
that they will give me their attendance at the next Lecture, 
when, as I have said, 1 shall more particularly enter upon the 
statement of my own positive reasons for believing that Christ 
is not God. This Lecture I shall deliver next Thursday even- 
ing. It has been represented to me, that by giving these 
Lectures only on Sunday evenings, I may be keeping away those 
who wish to hear both sides of the argument from their own 
places of worship, where they might be acquiring more general 
benefit. I have no wish to do so ; I should be sorry to do so. T 
did not begin this controversy, nor provoke it. I have no wish 
to prolong it unnecessarily ; but having been brought into it by 



42 



LECTURE SECOND, 



a sense of duty, T shall not shrink from continuing it to what- 
ever extent either existing or future circumstances may seem to 
me to demand. On Thursday evening, therefore, I shall 
deliver my last Lecture for the present ; and I shall then more 
especially give you my reasons for thinking, that we ought to 
interpret all the controverted passages of Scripture in a sense 
consistent with the exclusive deity of the God and Father of 
our Lord Jesus Christ 



LECTURE THIRD. 



MARK, c. 12, v. 29, 30. 

"And Jesus answered him, The first op all thb 
commandments is, Hear O Israel ; The Lord Our 
God is one Lord: 

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with 
all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is 
the first commandment." 



Every circumstance relating to this passage of Scripture 
serves to give it particular interest and value. The speaker 
is our Lord Jesus Christ himself. The question which had 
been put to him, by one of the Jewish Scribes, was of the very 
highest importance, " Which is the first commandment of all ? 
The manner and occasion of this enquiry were also of an espe- 
cial kind ; and the commendation which our Lord bestowed 
on the Scribe, when he saw that he fully understood and ap- 
proved his doctrine, was such as cannot fail to fix our attention. 
" And when Jesus," observes the Evangelist, " saw that he an- 
swered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the 
kingdom of God". All these circumstances, I say, help to 
give the passage more than ordinary solemnity and value. Let 
us therefore examine it closely. We read that our Lord had 
been reasoning with the Jews, first with the Pharisees, respect- 
ing the lawfulness of paying tribute to Caesar, and afterwards 
with the Sadducees, concerning the resurrection of the dead. 
" Then one of the Scribes came, and having heard them rea- 
soning together, and perceiving that he had answered them 
well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all ? And 
Jesus answered him, the first of all the commandments is, Hear 
O Israel, the Lord Our God is one Lord". I must here beg 
to make you acquainted with the opinion of some men learned 
in the Scriptures, that this part of our Lord's reply to the Scribe^ 



44 



LECTURE THIRD. 



is not translated, in our common version, so correctly as it 
might have been* These words, you will remember, are taken 
from Moses, and are first recorded in the 6th Chap, and 4th v. 
of the Book of Deuteronomy. Therefore the word " Lord", 
here, is undoubtedly the representative, (which it is not always 
in the New Testament,) of the proper name Jehovah, the pecu- 
liar name of the God of Tsrael. On these grounds, it is thought 
that the passage should either be rendered as two distinct affir- 
mations, in this way, " The Lord," that is Jehovah, " is our 
God, the Lord is one" ; or else as a single affirmation, with an 
emphatic repetition of the principal term, in this way, " The 
Lord our God, the Lord is one." This, which I believe, inde- 
pendently of all doctrinal considerations, to be the most correct 
method of rendering the passage, gives it a clear and important 
meaning, as a solemn declaration of the divine Unity. But our 
common version obscures this meaning, and indeed, if you re- 
flect on it, very nearly deprives the passage of all meaning what- 
ever. You can scarcely attach any sense to the words of Moses 
and of Christ, as they stand in the present translation, if you 
bear in mind that the term Lord is merely a substitute for the 
proper name Jehovah. To say, that Jehovah our God is one 
Jehovah, scarcely amounts to any sense. Proper names, from 
their nature and use, will not admit of plurality. Jehovah there- 
fore, being the proper name of the God of the Jews, of course 
there could be but one Jehovah ; and whether he consist of 
three personal distinctions, or be strictly one person, can make 
no difference in this case. His proper and exclusive name being 
Jehovah, it were a flat truism to say that he is one Jehovah. 
But to say, that Jehovah our God is One, meaning thereby to 
affirm that the true God is one and only one Being, (and 
surely, if such strange disputes had not arisen amongst Theolo- 
gians, T might have said one and only one Person,) — this, you 
perceive, amounts to a very clear and a very important meaning. 
Apply these remarks to any other proper names, and you will 
instantly see the justness of them. What meaning would there 
be, for example, in saying that Jesus Christ is one Jesus Christ, 
or Julius Caesar is one JuJius Caesar, or London is one London. 
There is barely any sense in such assertions. But to say that 
Jesus Christ is one, Julius Caesar is one, and London is one, 
meaning thereby to affirm that each of the objects to which these 
proper names are given is strictly one, according to their res- 
pective natures, one person or one city, this imparts a clear and 
reasonable meaning to the assertions. On all these grounds, 
therefore, and in order to give a real, weighty sense, to the words 
of Moses and of Christ, it is thought that they should be ren- 
dered into English as I have explained; either, " The Lord is 
our God, the Lord is one;" or else, " The Lord our God, the 
Lord, is one." This translation has been adopted by many 
Trinitarians. I may refer to the learned and judicious Dr. 
Campbell, in his excellent work on the four Gospels, who stre- 



LECTURE THIRD. 



45 



nuously advocates, and as I think clearly establishes, the 
propriety of such a translation. 

And here, ray Christian iriends, as I happen to be speaking 
of the translation of a passage of Scripture, allow me a few 
moments' digression on that subject. We have lately heard 
it asserted, that if a new translation of the Scriptures were 
now to be made, so far from there being- any diminution of the 
apparent evidence for the deity of Christ, there would be a 
considerable addition made to that evidence. It does not become 
me, perhaps, to contradict this assertion ; but I beg leave to 
say, with all due deference to the judgments of others, that 
I am decidedly of a different opinion. However, let me ask 
you to consider the circumstances of the case, and determine 
for yourselves which is most probable. You know that the 
Scriptures, both the original text and the translations, have 
been for many centuries almost exclusively in the hands of Tri- 
nitarian believers. Is it not most likely, therefore, that what- 
ever mistakes or corruptions may have crept into these sacred 
writings, they will generally be found of such a character as 
to favour the popular prevailing belief? This you must see 
to be in itself most probable. Another circumstance also 
deserves attention. Trinitarian believers, and in this country 
especially, the Trinitarian Clergy of the Church of England", 
are the only persons who have the power and influence neces- 
sary to cause a new translation of the Scriptures to be made, 
60 as that it may have the sanction of public authority and be 
received with confidence by the people. I believe there is no 
class of Christians who would rejoice more sincerely, than 
Unitarians, to see a great national work of this kind accom- 
plished, in an able and faithful manner. 1 can truly say for 
myself, (and I am convinced that I express the feelings of the 
great majority of Unitarians,) that I exceedingly admire and 
venerate the common English version of the Scriptures. I 
suppose that there is no version in the world to be preferred to 
it, for general excellence ; and I hold that, besides its faithful- 
ness as a translation, it is, in point of English, one of the most 
glorious monuments that was ever raised to the honour of a fine 
language. I should be grieved to my heart, to see it super- 
seded by any other version, which has ever fallen under my 
notice, I am persuaded, that Christians of all sects and parties 
would desire to see this version remain as it is, in respect 
to all its great leading qualities, only corrected in those in- 
stances where it is now known to be erroneous, from our pre- 
sent improved acquaintance with the original text of Scripture. 
We heretics challenge the highly educated Trinitarian Clergy 
of the Church of England, who alone have the power to cause 
this desirable work to be accomplished, to put forth a new 
translation. They themselves declare that if it were done, it 
would go far to annihilate our heresy, by more fully establish- 
ing the doctrine of the deity of Christ, which they say is a 



46 



LECTURE THIRD. 



doctrine necessary to salvation and yet this work is not ac- 
complished, nor a single step taken to advance it. How is this 
strange conduct to be accounted for ? My brethren, there are 
some circumstances, which may go far to outweigh any man's 
mere confident assertion, however sincere he may be in making 
it, and however well qualified he may be to form a judgment 
on the subject. 

All this, however, is entirely digression. I will now return, 
for a few moments, to the passage which I have read as my 
text. Suffer me to call your attention to the answer of- the 
Scribe, (verse 32), "Well, Master, thou hast said the truth; 
for there is one God, and there is none other but he." In the 
most approved text of the New Testament at the present day, 
the word " God" is here rejected as spurious ; and the passage 
reads better without it. The sense will then be, " Well, 
Master, thou hast said the truth, there is but one," or rather, 
perhaps, " He is one," Jehovah, our God, to whom the com- 
mandment relates, " He is one, and there is none other but 
he." But whether we read it thus, or take it as it stands in our 
present version, the answer of the Scribe will fairly admit of 
but one meaning. It is a clear and explicit declaration of his 
belief in the strict unity of God. It shews in what sense this 
commandment had been always understood by the Jews, as a 
precept of the Mosaic law, and that it was now understood by 
the Scribe in precisely the same sense, when repeated from the 
lips of Jesus Christ. What, then, is the reply of our Saviour 
to this confession of the Scribe ? Does he give any correction 
of this man's evident understanding of the first of all the com- 
mandments ? No, — but when he saw that he answered 
discreetly, he said, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of 
God." Reflecting, therefore, on all these circumstances, I say, 
that if we have not here the express authority of Christ, fop 
believing in the unity of God precisely as the ancient Jews 
believed in it, (and they surely never conceived of three divine 
persons), I am utterly at a loss to imagine by what words such 
a meaning could have been conveyed. Yet I am now told that 
I must not so understand the words of Christ. I am told, that 
I must not bring my preconceived notions of unity to the 
interpretation of this solemn commandment of revealed religion. 
Now, let me ask you a simple question or two on this point. 
Can you doubt, that the ancient Jews, to whom this command- 
ment was originally addressed, and the Scribe and all the other 
hearers of Christ to whom it was repeated, can you doubt, I 
say, that they had some preconceived notion of unity in their 
minds, when they listened to this commandment? Can you 
doubt, that it was the very same notion of unity, which I have, 
and which you have, and which necessarily exists in the minds 
of all human beings? Can you doubt, that the Maker of man 
and the Author of revelation knew that this notion of unity 
was in the minds of his creatures, and that by the light of this 



LEC TURE THIRD. 



47 



notion they would be sure to interpret his commandment? 
How is it that in the Scriptures we meet with no caution against 
understanding this precept in its plain and obvious sense? 
How is it, that when Moses and Christ are silent, the modern 
Trinitarian ventures to tell mankind, that they must not under- 
stand this commandment according to that preconceived notion 
of unity, which God must have known to be in the minds of all 
whose ears the commandment could ever reach ? 

Once more, therefore, I conceive that I have established 
the great truth for which I contend, not by any inferential 
evidence, not by any elaborate comparison of passages in the 
Old with passages in the New Testament, not by any ingenious 
deductions from obscure and figurative phraseology, but on the 
plainest and most express declarations of Holy Writ. Having 
done this, although I am willing to examine the arguments of 
the Trinitarian, I maintain that, in fact, the truth of the 
Unitarian doctrine is already proved. Whatever difficulties 
or obscurities we may meet with in certain parts of Scripture, 
we are bound to interpret them consistently with this 
great fundamental principle of revelation. The Trinitarian 
objects, however, that the argument is not yet by any means 
closed. He says, even, that all which I have yet proved is 
nothing whatever to the purpose. He insists that there are 
other passages from which it may be certainly inferred, that not 
the Father exclusively, but Christ also, is God ; and that what- 
ever seeming inconsistencies this new proposition may introduce, 
we are nevertheless bound to embrace it. I consent therefore 
to go on with the argument. But I beg to remind the 
Trinitarian, that he is now proceeding to establish, by inference, 
a doctrine which he will find it hard to reconcile with the 
plainer teaching of the Scriptures, I beg to remind him, that 
the Scriptures are very ancient books, written in languages 
no longer spoken on the face of the earth, and full of allusions 
to customs and modes of thinking no longer familiar to men; 
and that consequently there may be some parts ot these writings 
which cannot he entirely freed from all obscurity. I beg to 
remind him, that the Scriptures are Eastern and Jewish 
writings; that the Jews and all other Eastern people were wont 
to employ a much bolder and loftier style of expression, in 
describing the characters and actions of human beings, than we 
are accustomed to use in the present times; and that, conse- 
quently, there may be some danger of our misinterpreting such 
writings, unless we pay due attention to this difference of style, 
and be guided by our knowledge of plain, indubitable truths. 
The advocate of the Trinitarian doctrine does not seem to me to 
be sufficiently sensible of this danger. He says, that if he finds 
that the attributes and honors of deity appear to be ascribed to 
any person, — to Isaiah or Jeremiah, for instance, — he shall im- 
mediately conclude that that person is God. T have no doubt of 
his sincerity in making this assertion. Nevertheless, I doubt 



48 



LECTURE THIRD. 



very much if he would draw the same inferences in the case 
of any other person, as he does in regard to Jesus Christ. I 
doubt this, amongst other reasons, because T find that he does 
not always derive a similar inference from similar premises, as 
the Scriptures actually stand. And this remark gives me an 
opportunity of illustrating, by a few examples, the danger 
which appertains to this kind of inferential evidence. For 
instance, the name Elijah, the name of a well known prophet, 
signifies, when literally translated, " God Jehovah ;" and the 
name Melchijah, the name of one of the family of Aaron, being 
interpreted, signifies, " Jehovah our King," or "Jehovah my 
King." In fact, if you look into any good Concordance of 
the proper names of Jewish Kings, Heroes, Rulers, Prophets, 
and worthies of every class, you will find that avast number of 
them are, in this manner, composed of titles and epithets 
which properly belong to the supreme God. The Jews 
were accustomed to give such names to men, not in any case to 
describe their nature, but in general to describe something in 
their character, station, or history. Why not infer at once that 
all these persons were God, because their names, when thus 
literally interpreted, mean something relating to God? I know 
it would be an absurd conclusion; but I wish to be shewn the 
difference, between such an argument, and the argument for the 
deity of Christ commonly derived from the name Emanuel y 
which, being interpreted, signifies " God with us." Then again, 
if we insist on always taking the rigid grammatical relation of a 
pronoun, without regard to known and established truths, we 
may infer that Moses was God. Turn, for instance, to the 29th 
chap, of Deuteronomy, and read from the 2nd verse : — " Moses 
called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that 
the Lord did before your eyes in the land of Egypt, unto 
Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land ;" and 
Moses continues thus to be the only speaker, until we come to 
the 6th verse, when he appears to say to the Israelites, " that ye 
might know that / am the Lord your God." Why not infer 
from this, that Moses is the Lord God? It were a very absurd 
conclusion, doubtless; but I see little or no difference, between 
this argument, and the argument for the proper deity of Christ 
commonly derived from the close of the 1st General Epistle of 
John, where it is said, "This is the true God and eternal life." 
The argument here entirely depends on the strict grammatical 
relation of the pronoun, which may seem to be to Christ, 
although the true God is mentioned twice in the same sentence. 
It may likewise be observed, that the passage to which I have 
alluded in Deuteronomy, affords another inferential argument 
for the deity of Moses, as plausible as some which are often used 
to prove the deity of Christ, [n the 5th verse Moses appears to 
say, "/have led you forty years in the wilderness." Yet in 
the 32nd chap, and 12th verse, speaking of their wandering in 
the wilderness, it is said, " The Lord alone did lead Israel." 



LECTURE THIRD. 



Why not infer from this that Moses was the Lord God ? It 
would be a very hasty and absurd conclusion; but how would 
this argument differ from the argument for the deity of Christ, 
when it is inferred that, because in Isaiah (chap. 43, v. 11,) 
Jehovah says, (i I even I am the Lord and beside me there is no 
Saviour," and because Christ is often called our Saviour, there^- 
fore Christ is Jehovah? Again, if whenever the works of Pro- 
vidence may seem in Scripture to be ascribed to any person, we 
are immediately to conclude that this person is God, without re^ 
garding the inconsistency of such a conclusion with other prin- 
ciples of revelation, then in this manner also we may conclude 
that Moses was God. In the 11th chap, and at the 13th verse of 
the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses is apparently speaking, and he 
says, "It shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto 
my commandments, which I command you this day, to love the 
Lord your God, and to serve him with all your heart and all your 
soul, that / will give you the rain of your land in his due season, 
the first rain and the latter rain, that thou mayest gather in thy 
corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, and / will send grass in thy 
fields for thy cattle, that thou mayest eat and be full." If we 
take this strictly as it stands, Moses may seem to declare that he 
will exercise a divine providence over the Israelites, to give 
them rain from heaven, and grass in their fields. I believe that 
in the Septuagint version, both these errors are corrected by 
simply changing the persons of the verbs. No doubt that it is 
a mere obscurity or ambiguity, either in the original or in the 
translation. But this is precisely the nature of many popular 
arguments for the deity of Christ. Again, it is very commonly 
argued that Christ is God, because men are said to be baptized 
into him, as well as into God, even the Father. Now, we read, 
in the 10th chap, and 2nd verse of the 1st Epistle to the 
Corinthians, that all the Israelites " were baptized unto," or 
into, " Moses ;" and in the original, it is the very same ex- 
pression which the Apostle has twice used (Romans 6th chap* 
3rd verse, and Galatians 3rd chap. 27th verse), in speaking of 
believers being baptized into Christ. Why not conclude from 
this, that Moses likewise is God? In this case the conclusion 
would be instantly felt to be absurd; but the argument itself 
is precisely the same in both cases. Again, it is often con- 
tended that Christ is God, because he is represented as being 
together with God the object of the same actions from men ; 
for instance, that men are said to believe in God, and to be- 
lieve in Christ. Now, in the 6th chap, and the J 1th verse of 
the Acts of the Apostles, we find that Moses is spoken of as 
being the object of the same conduct of men together with God : 
" Then they suborned men which said, We have heard him 
speak blasphemous words against Moses and against God." I 
would ask any person well acquainted with this controversy, 
whether if this had been said of Christ, instead of Moses, it 
would not have been certainly construed into an argument 

F 



50 



LECTURE THIRD, 



that they who tittered these words believed Christ to be 
God? I can assure you, that there is a great deal of 
this loose inferential kind of evidence for the deity of 
Moses. But I will pursue the subject no further; perhaps 
what I have said already may lead to a misrepresentation 
of my motives. I am conscious, however, that I have none 
but serious objects in view. My only purpose is, to illustrate 
to your minds the danger which lurks in this inferential mode 
of reasoning from the language of Scripture, in opposition to 
plain and acknowledged principles. 

Now, let me entreat you to consider, what is the 
character of even the most striking passages which are adduced 
in support of the deity of Christ. I think I have already 
shewn you, that they are either wholly irrelevant to the point in 
dispute, or that they are quite doubtful and ambiguous in 
their meaning, or that on some other grounds they are entirely 
insufficient and inconclusive to the purpose for which they are 
brought forward. And observe; I do not profess to contend 
for more than this, in respect to some of those passages. I am 
persuaded, indeed, that it may be clearly demonstrated of many 
passages of Scripture, that their real meaning is different from 
that which Trinitarians would attach to them. But in regard 
to some passages, I contend for no more than that they are in 
themselves ambiguous, that they may be interpreted in either 
of two or more senses, according to the guidance of general 
principles. Some of them might be not unreasonably thought 
to refer to the deity of Christ, if it were certain on other 
grounds that Christ is God. But I still maintain, that all these 
passages may, in strict accordance with the just and admitted 
rules of Scriptural interpretation, be understood in a different 
sense, consistent with the Unitarian doctrine of the sole deity 
of the Father. I contend therefore that we are thrown back 
upon general principles, to guide us in our decision as to which 
of two or more admissible interpretations we ought to adopt. 
Now ray particular object in this last Lecture, is to lay before 
you some of those general considerations, which I think should 
determine our judgments in favour of the Unitarian interpre- 
tation of the few controverted passages. I must beg of those 
amongst my hearers, who may not have been present at my two 
former Lectures, to bear this circumstance in mind. Let it be 
clearly understood, that I do not put forward these general 
considerations as being in themselves decisive grounds for 
rejecting the Trinitarian doctrine, in opposition to the undoubted 
meaning of a single passage of Scripture. I only put them 
forward as strong reasonable grounds, for being very cautious 
how you receive that doctrine ; and, indeed, as sufficient 
grounds for rejecting the doctrine at once, if you can believe, 
as I do most firmly believe, that all the passages commonly 
adduced in support of it will fairly admit of another 
interpretation. 



LECTURE THIRD. 



51 



1. My first general consideration, then, is, that this 
doctrine of the proper deity of Christ is no where stated in the 
Scriptures, in that direct and unequivocal manner, which we 
might naturally have expected from its extreme novelty and 
extreme importance. Perhaps if I were to say, what I fully 
believe, that it is never once stated in the Scriptures in any 
manner, the Trinitarian would object to this as a misrepresen- 
tation. Therefore I content myself with saying, that it is not 
stated in that clear, and direct, and express manner, which its 
extreme novelty and importance might seem to demand. Or 
I will put it in this way : I will say, that the doctrine is not 
stated in the same full and express manner, in which many 
other doctrines, of confessedly inferior importance, and requir- 
ing less evidence to establish them, certainly are stated in the 
Scriptures. The doctrine of the proper deity of Christ i3 
almost entirely a doctrine built upon inferences. You infer, 
you deduce, that Christ is God, because certain things are said 
concerning him in the Scriptures, which you think imply that 
he must be God. That this is the the true state of the case, 
has been again and again admitted by the most zealous advocates 
for the Trinitarian doctrine ; and it cannot be denied by any 
person who rightly understands the meaning of the assertion. 
Now, 1 beseech you to consider, how very differently the case 
stands with regard to all the great and indisputable doctrines 
of the Gospel. For example, that there is but one God, and 
that this one God is the Father,— this is not a mere inference 
from the language of Scripture, but a plain and express decla- 
ration of the Scriptures. " To us" says the Apostle Paul 
" there is but one God, the Father." Again, that Jesus 
was the true Christ, that he was sent from God to be the 
Saviour of the world, — this is not a mere inference from the 
language of Scripture, but a plain and express statement of 
the Scriptures. The Apostle Paul (Acts, chap. 17, v. 3,) 
addressing the Jews at Thessalonica, after reasoning with them 
out of the Scriptures, affirms this conclusion, that " this 
Jesus whom I preach unto you is Christ," the true Messiah, 
foretold by the prophets and expected by all the Jews. Jesus 
himself declares, (John 12 chap., 49th v.,) " The Father who 
sent me, he gave me a commandment what I should say, and 
what I should speak." The Apostle Peter, immediately after 
receiving the Holy Spirit, uttered these words, (Acts chap. 2, 
v. 22nd.), " Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God 
among you by miracles, and wonders and signs, which God 
did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also 
know." Here nothing is left to inference. Here are plain 
and repeated statements of the divine mission and Messiah- 
ship of Jesus Christ. Again, the great doctrine of the 
forgiveness and the remission of sins, on sincere repentance, 
through the mercy of God, — this is not a mere inference from 
the language of Scripture, but a clear and solemn statement 

f 2 



LECTURE THIRD. 



of the Scriptures. " If we confess our sins" (1st. Epistle of 
John, chap. 1, v. 9,) " he is faithful and just to forgive us our 
sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." Once more, 
the all-important doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and 
of immortal life, — this is not a mere inference from the Scrip- 
tures, but a plain and often repeated statement. " The hour 
is coming," (John chap. 5, v. 28), « in the which all that are in 
the grave shall hear his voice, and shall come forth, they 
that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that 
have done evil unto the resurrection of condemnation." I 
bring these instances before you, as examples of the manner 
in which the true and great doctrines of the Gospel are 
expressly stated in the Scriptures. Now, it is not stated in the 
same express manner, that Jesus Christ is God. It is said, 
indeed, that the " Word" is God, and as you think that the 
" Word" means Jesus Christ, and cannot mean any thing else, 
you thereupon infer that Jesus Christ is God. But it is not so 
stated in the Scriptures ; and I am convinced that the " Word" 
has a very different meaning in that passage. Our Saviour 
himself never says, " I am God, I am Almighty, I am equal to 
the Father," His Apostles never say, M Jesus Christ whom 
we preach, is God." We never read in the Scriptures of 
" God, the Son," as we do read constantly of " God, the Father.' 
There is no such thing in the Scriptures, therefore, as a plain 
and express statement of the deity of Christ. It is entirely left 
to be inferred. Remember, at all events, that this is the true 
hinge of the controversy between us. The question is not, 
whether the doctrine of the Scriptures be true and divine; we 
acknowledge that it is so. It is not, whether the real teaching 
of Christ and his Apostles should be received with all faith and 
reverence; we acknowledge that it should. It is not even, 
whether it be expressly stated in the Scriptures that Jesus Christ 
is God, equal with the Father ; you must allow that it is not so 
stated. The question is simply, whether you are right in cer- 
tain inferences which you draw from certain passages of 
Scripture, wherein you think the deity of Christ is implied. 
You think you are right, we think you are wrong, in drawing 
these inferences. You should especially bear in mind, that 
this doctrine of the deity of Christ was altogether a new and 
strange doctrine, which required to be supported by the amplest 
evidence; and yet you see, that other doctrines, which were less 
strange and less important, are stated in the Scriptures much 
more clearly. I present this consideration to your minds, not 
as being in itself decisive, but only as one out of many conside- 
rations, which should make you exceedingly cautious in drawing 
such inferences from the language of Scripture. 

2. My next general consideration is, that Christ is com- 
monly represented by the inspired writers, not as himself God, 
equal with the Father, but as one who was in perfect subjection 
and subordination to the Father. In support of this assertion, 



XECTURE THIRD. 



53 



I 'might lay before you almost the whole Gospel History, where 
the inferiority of Christ to the Father seems to be implied, in 
the uniform manner of declaring his divine mission and 
authority. Do not the sacred writers tell us that Christ was 
the servant of God, chosen by him for the accomplishment of a 
particular work ? " Behold my servant whom I have chosen ; 
my beloved in whom my soul is well pleased : I will put my 
spirit upon him and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles." 
(Matthew chap. 12, v. 18). Are we not informed, that God 
appointed Christ, to fulfil the holy office which he sustained as 
the spiritual King of men ? " He was faithful" says the 
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, " to him that appointed 
him, as Moses also was faithful." We are likewise told, that 
Christ was sanctified by God, that is, was made holy by God, and 
set apart from the rest of mankind for high and holy purposes. 
It is the language of Jesus himself, " Say ye of him, whom the 
Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, thou blasphemest?" 
Did our Saviour come on his heavenly errand on his own accord, 
in his own name, to do his own will ? or in his Heavenly 
Father's name, as his Messenger, and to do his will f We have the 
answer in his own words: "As my Father hath sent me, even 
so send I you. This is life eternal, O Father, that they may 
know thee, and Jesus.Christ whom thou hast sent.' 1 If we are to 
draw inferences, surely here are grounds enough for the 
inference, that Christ was altogether distinct from and inferior 
to God. 

But another view may be taken of this subject ; another body 
of evidence may be brought to bear against the proper deity of 
our Saviour. He was possessed of wonderful power, wonderful 
knowledge, wisdom, greatness and authority. They who 
beheld his astonishing miracles, and heard his sublime teaching-, 
exclaimed, " Whence hath this man this wisdom and these 
mighty works?" A very proper enquiry it was then, and still 
continues. It was necessary in those days, to determine whether 
Jesus was the Christ; it is equally necessary now, to determine 
whether he is properly God. Whence had he these divine 
endowments ? If he be himself God, infinite in all perfection, 
he had them from eternity, as the unchangeable attributes of 
his own nature. If, on the other hand, these powers were all 
given to him by the Father, then the question would appear to 
be settled, that Christ is not God, equal to the Father. To 
the law and the testimony, then, let us make our appeal. 
What read we in the Scriptures? 

First. In regard to our Saviour's marvellous knowledge and 
wisdom, I may refer you to his own declarations, as recorded 
in any one of the four Gospels, but especially in that which is 
strangely supposed by Trinitarians to contain the fullest evi- 
dence of their doctrine, — the Gospel according to John, — but 
which I never read without feeling that it is, of all the Gospels, 
the most completely Unitarian, abounding with the clearest 



54 



LECTURE THIRD. 



testimony to the sole deity of the Father, and to the simple, 
genuine humanity of Christ. " The Father loveth the Son," 
saith Jesus, and sheweth him all things." "As my Father hath 
taught me, I speak these things." " All things that I have 
heard of my Father, I have made known unto you." You 
perceive it is the doctrine of Jesus, that he had received all hia 
knowledge and wisdom from the Father, that by God he had 
been taught, instructed, inspired, and commanded what he 
should utter. Could a Being of infinite and underived wisdom 
have spoken of himself thus ? We have all, doubtless, beea 
frequently impressed with that sublime description of the 
essential wisdom of God, given by the Prophet Isaiah, (chap. 
40, v. 13 and 14,) " Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, 
or, being his Counsellor, hath taught him? With whom took 
he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path 
of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and showed to him the 
way of understanding ?" Compare this with the account which 
Jesus has himself given of the derivation of all his knowledge 
and wisdom from the Father of spirits, and then I willingly 
leave to your own judgments the decision of the question, 
whether Christ can be God, equal with the Father. 

Then again, with regard to the power of Christ. That he 
had miraculous power over the laws of nature, and the most 
stubborn diseases of the human frame, was clearly shewn 
throughout his ministry. The blind received their sight, and 
the deaf their hearing, and the sick arose from their beds, at the 
command of his voice. I am aware, that these mighty works 
are generally looked upon as signs of his proper deity, being 
ascribed to his own omnipotent energy. But how any person 
can come to this conclusion, with the Scriptures before him, is 
to me matter of unfeigned astonishment. "I can of my own 
self do nothing" said Jesus : and again, " The Father that 
dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." I maintain, that this 
assertion of our Saviour is a perfect contradiction to the 
Trinitarian doctrine on the subject of his power. That doer 
trine is, that all the miraculous works of Christ were wrought 
by the power, not of the Father, but of a second divine person, 
God the Son, which is Christ himself. Jesus, however, 
declares that they were wrought by the power of the Father, 
dwelling in him ; — which is precisely the Unitarian doctrine. 
I doubt not, that you may find other passages in which Christ 
claims to work miracles without at the time immediately 
ascribing the power to God; but I say that, after this solemn 
declaration from his own lips, it is neither reasonable nor decent 
in you, to infer from such a circumstance that he pretended to 
work miracles by his own divine power. It is remarkable, that 
the miraculous power of Jesus, and the miraculous power of 
the Apostles, is sometimes spoken of in the Scriptures in 
exactly similar terms. Peter, for instance, calls Jesus " a man 
approved of God, by miracles which God did by him" In the 



LECTURE THIRD, 



55 



Acts of the Apostles, (chap. 15, v. 12,) we read that "all the 
multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and 
Paul, declaring* what miracles and wonders God had wrought by 
them, 17 Can we suppose, that the inherent, essential power of 
an Almighty Being, would thus be spoken of, by inspired men, 
in the same terms in which they speak of their own miraculous 
power, confessedly derived from God ? 

Neither, if we direct our thoughts to the still higher power 
and glory of Christ, in his present exalted state, shall we see any 
reason to change our views on this subject. " Glorify thy Son," 
says Christ to the Father, " that thy Son also may glorify thee, 
as thou hast given him power over all flesh." u All power is 
given unto me in heaven and earth." The glorious event of the 
resurrection of Christ, and the increased power and authority 
which he then displayed, are always ascribed to the favour of 
God. The Apostle Paul speaks of lC the mighty power of God, 
which he wrought in Christ when he raised him from the 
dead." We are told, that he first received from the Father the 
gift of the Holy Spirit, and then imparted it to his disciples. 
Now, every word of this kind affords strong evidence, that 
Christ himself is not God, but entirely distinct from and subor- 
dinate to God, from whom he received all his high miraculous 
/endowments. 

Do not imagine, my brethren, that T think there is no 
possible answer to all this evidence against the proper deity of 
Christ. I know there is an answer to be given ; and I know what 
it is. I shall be told, that all this, which implies the inferiority 
of Christ, is said of him either in reference to his human nature 
alone, or in reference merely to his mediatorial capacity; — that 
in these respects only, and not in his original proper nature, he 
was inferior and subordinate to the Father. I know that this 
must and will be said ; because, in fact, there is nothing else to 
be said. But I exhort you to consider, that no such explana- 
tion of their language is ever given by the inspired writers 
themselves. They uniformly speak of Christ in this manner, as 
subject to the Father, and receiving all his greatness from the 
Father, without the slightest reserve or caution of any kind ; 
and they never once warn us to be careful, not to understand 
these declarations in their plain, obvious meaning. I contend, 
therefore, that we are bound to receive their teaching on this 
subject, without any such strange and arbitrary qualifications 
as Trinitarians would adopt. 1 know very well, that if the 
Trinitarian be allowed to assume, at every step of the argument, 
that Christ had two natures, — and to say, whenever he meets 
with a testimony of Scripture which he cannot otherwise evade, 
" this relates to the divine nature, and that relates to the human 
nature, this relates to Christ in his highest glory, and that 
relates to him only in his mediatorial office," — I know that in 
this way we have no chance of absolutely confuting the 
Trinitarian. And I maintain that it would be the same, if the 



LECTURE THIRD. 



same assumption were allowed, had the language of the Scrip- 
tures been whatever it might. Had our Saviour declared, again 
and again, that he was not God, that he was not Almighty, that 
he was not Omniscient, that he was not equal to the Father ; I 
see not why the Trinitarian might not then have replied, as he 
does now, u O, all that relates to Christ only in his human 
nature, or only in his mediatorial capacity, — nevertheless he is 
God, he is Almighty, Omniscient, and equal to the Father, in 
his proper divine nature." I say, it were impossible either to 
prove or disprove any thing, on such arbitrary conditions. 
Observe ; I do not object to the right of the Trinitarian, to 
make use of any doctrine which he firmly believes to be a 
doctrine of the Scriptures, for his own satisfaction in elucida- 
ting certain obscure passages. I cannot deny him, or any 
Christian believer, this right. But the present case is of a very 
different kind. We are at present considering, not certain 
obscure passages, but the common, uniform representation of 
the Scriptures, that Christ received all his power and wisdom 
from the Father. Besides, the doctrine, which in this evasion 
the Trinitarian assumes, namely, that Christ has a divine as well 
as a human nature, or that he has any higher dignity than that 
which belongs to him as Mediator, — this is the very doctrine 
the truth of which we are discussing; — and I do maintain, that 
for the Trinitarian, in the course of this discussion, to say at 
every turn, whenever it may suit his convenience, " such a thing 
was said of Christ only in reference to his human nature, or, 
only in reference to his mediatorial capacity," thereby assuming 
that he has a divine nature and a higher glory, — I do maintain, 
that this is a gross instance of that which we have lately heard so 
much declaimed against, the petitio pri?icipii, or complete beg- 
ging of the question. 

3rd. My next general consideration is, that the uniform 
conduct and history of Christ, as we read it in the Scriptures, 
indicates that he was not God. You know that he came into 
the world, being born of a woman, like all other human beings. 
YotrfctH>w that ie grew up from infancy to manhood, advancing 
in favour with God and man. You know that he exhibited all 
the natural signs of a proper humanity ; that he hungered and 
thirsted, grew weary and sorrowful, wept and suffered and died. 
All this is too clearly related in the Scriptures, to be disputed by 
any class of Christians, at least in modern times. But what I 
wish you to consider is, whether the Trinitarian position, that 
all this time Christ was truly and properly God, does not 
completely destroy the simplicity (I will use no stronger term,) 
the simplicity of his character, of his words and actions, in 
these respects, and the moral efficacy of his holy, beneficent 
example ? 

First, then, I would call your attention to that numerous 
class of passages, in which our Saviour expressly denies that he 
himself is possessed of certain divine attributes, and ascribes 



LECTURE THIRD. 



S7 



all such perfections exclusively to another person, whom he 
denominates God, his Father 0 He declares, for instance, that 
he has not in himself essential, almighty power, — " I can of 
mine own self do nothing." " The Father that dwelleth in me, 
he doeth the works." He declares also, in the most solemn 
manner, that he is not possessed of Omniscience. Referring to 
the day of judgment he say3, " Of that day and that hour 
knoweth no man, no not the angels in heaven, neither the Son, 
but the Father." Now, what is the view of our Saviour's 
character and words, in making these professions, which is 
suggested by the Unitarian opinion of his nature ? The 
simplest — you must allow, — the simplest, clearest, plainest view, 
that can be imagined. We are enabled to believe, that it ivas 
with Christ precisely as he seems to affirm, that he was not, in 
any way or in any sense, possessed of these divine attributes. 
We recognise in these declarations of Jesus, simple, unqualified 
truth, without the least reservation or mystery of any kind. We 
also recognise in them, (give me leave to say,) the most inter- 
esting evidences of our Saviour's personal humility and piety. 
We behold one, who was exalted by God to the highest degree 
of spiritual authority, always meekly confessing his entire 
dependence on the divine giver of all good gifts. Here, there- 
fore, everything is plain, consistent, and deeply instructive. 
But what view of the character and words of Christ, in these 
respects, is suggested by the Trinitarian opinion of his nature ? 
Why, according to this opinion, our Saviour, at the very moment 
when he was uttering these declarations, had all those divine 
perfections, which he said that he had not. He could do all 
things of himself ; he did know the time of the day of judgment ; 
he was Almighty and Omniscient. How, then, can the words 
of Christ, in these particulars, be reconciled with strict veracity 
and simplicity of intention ? You know the usual explanation. 
Trinitarians say, that when Christ uttered such things, he spoke 
merely in reference tu his human nature, or to his mediatorial 
capacity. Now, not to insist again, that this is a most unreason- 
able assumption of the very question in dispute, I may surely 
say that, compared with the Unitarian view of our Saviour's 
words, it is strange, perplexing, subtle. There may not be an 
absolute want of veracity, but there is surely great want of 
simplicity, in the character and teaching of Christ, when thus 
contemplated. The wayfaring man, metbinks, might have read 
the Scriptures for ever, if untutored in schools of theology, and 
he never would have discovered that Christ had such a hidden 
reservation in his words. I cannot but think, however, that if 
I chose to press the subject, it might easily be shown that the 
Trinitarian hypothesis is liable to even more serious objections. 

But I call your attention to another numerous class of 
passages, in which our Lord is said to have been tried and 
tempted, and to have suffered both in body and mind. Every 
reader of the Scriptures must be aware that such passages are 



58 



LECTURE THIRD* 



numerous. We read that, in the commencement of his ministry, 
Jesus Christ spent forty days in solitude, in the wilderness 
undergoing the most powerful and varied temptations. You 
know that there is scarcely any form of human distress, which 
is not ascribed to our Saviour in the Scriptures. He mourned 
in sympathy with his afflicted friends ; he was awed and 
depressed at the approach of his own crucifixion ; he cried 
out in the agonies of death, " My God, my God, why hast 
thou forsaken me!" Again, I would ask, what is the* view 
of our Lord's character and ways in these instances, which 
is afforded by the Unitarian doctrine concerning his nature? 
Is it not perfectly simple, rational, consistent, edifying, and 
affecting ? We are enabled to believe, again, that it was 
with Christ in all these respects, precisely as it is related 
in the Scriptures, without the slightest drawback or qualifi- 
cation of any kind. We believe that, being in nature sim- 
ply human, he did really endure, as any other human 
creature would have done, all these sufferings of body and 
soul, and all these severe trials of his piety; but that being 
a most holy and righteous person, and being moreover con- 
stantly under the guiding, supporting influence, of God's 
Holy Spirit, he was able to resist all temptation, without 
contracting one stain of sin, and thus to be made perfect 
through suffering, without once wavering in his obedience 
and submission to his heavenly Father. To our minds, in 
short, the history and character of Christ, in these particu- 
lars, afford a simple, although a perfect, manifestation of human 
piety and virtue. But according to the Trinitarian opinion of 
Christ's nature, he, who is said to be thus tempted and 
tried, and to have endured these bitter sufferings, was all 
this time the Eternal and Immutable God. How is this 
to be reconciled with truth and possibility ? We surely know 
that God cannot be tempted, neither can he suffer. We know 
that the ever-blessed God could not weep, and be sorrowful and 
heavy in his Spirit. We know that the immortal God could not 
die, and therefore could not have been afflicted at the prospect 
of death How then could Christ be truly subject to those 
feelings, if he were truly God ? You know, again, what is the 
usual answer. We are told, that Christ suffered all these 
things only in his human nature. The answer is grounded on 
a palpable fallacy. Unless Christ consisted of two persons, 
(which no Trinitarian maintains,) his having two natures will 
not meet the objection ; inasmuch as it is not what we call the 
nature of any person, abstractedly considered, that either suffers 
or enjoys, but it is the person, the conscious, intelligent being 
himself. Was Christ one being, one person, or two ? You 
say, one. Was Christ God ? You say, yes. Did Christ 
suffer, and was he tempted? You again say, yes. Then 
we answer that, distinguish with as much subtlety as you 
may, between the supposed divine and human natures of this 



LECTURE THIRD. 



one person, still it was God who suffered and wa3 tempted. 
And permit me to say, my brethren, that I think a very 
ingenious principle which I have lately heard advanced by 
the Trinitarian, may be here directly turned against him- 
self. In replying to the Unitarian argument against the 
deity of Christ from his own declaration that he knew not 
the day of judgment, we have recently heard it laid down, 
"that although the less cannot include the greater, yet the 
greater must include the less ; and therefore, though the human 
knowledge of Jesus could not include his divine, yet his 
divine knowledge must include all his human knowledge, 
and infinitely more; and therefore that although Christ might 
not know the day of judgment in his human nature, yet he 
knew it in his divine nature. " I thought this at the time 
very ingenious, — not sound at all, — but clever and ingenious. 
1 now clearly perceive, however, that whilst it may serve the 
Trinitarian's purpose well enough, in speaking of any thing 
negative in the human nature of Christ, (as for example, his 
ignorance of the day of judgment,) yet the moment we come 
to speak of any thing positive in the human nature of Christ, 
then this very ingenious principle is immediately converted 
into a formidable weapon against the Trinitarian himself. 
The sorrows and sufferings of Christ were, unlike his igno- 
rance, something positive, something actually experienced by 
him in his human nature; and therefore, since the greater 
must include the less, the divine consciousness of our Saviour 
must have included his human consciousness in these respects. 
On the Trinitarian's own favourite principle, therefore, it 
clearly follows, that when Chiist suffered and was tempted, 
it was God who suffered and was tempted. What perplexity, 
what confusion, what inconsistency and absurdity, this doc- 
trine introduces into our views of the divine nature, requires 
no further explanation. 

4th. My next general consideration is, that the doctrine 
of the proper deity of Christ is most incredible, because we no 
where meet, in the Scriptures, with any signs of the stupendous 
effects which must have been produced by the first discovery of 
it, both on the minds of the inspired teachers themselves, and on 
the minds of their converts. Consider well what the circum- 
stances are, as the Trinitarian views them. There is no ground, 
T apprehend, for supposing that either the Jewish people at 
large, or the personal followers of Christ, had in the beginning 
of his Ministry the remotest conception that he was God. 
They knew that he had been born amongst them as a human 
being, and that he had exhibited all the ordinary wants and 
sensibilities of human nature. They had travelled about with 
him from place to place, shared with him in his toils and suffer- 
ings, leant upon his bosom in friendly confidence, and several 
times even raised objections to his conduct. They had beheld 
him seized by the hands of his ruthless enemies, suspended on 



60 



LECTURE THIRD. 



the cross, and yielding 1 up bis spirit to death. Up to this time, 
unquestionably, the disciples could not have had the most 
distant conception, that the person with whom they had thus 
lived and conversed was their own Almighty Jehovah. And 
yet you say, that they soon afterwards taught this doctrine 
to the world, as an essential principle of the Gospel, There 
must have been a period in their history, therefore, when this 
awful conviction first fell upon their minds. Or if you sup- 
pose it to have been wrought ever so gradually, there must have 
been a period when they at length became convinced, that the 
person whom they had thus seen, and handled, and embraced, 
and rebuked, was the Eternal Maker of Heaven and Earth. 
I say, then, shew me, from the Scriptures, when that 
period was, shew me from the Scriptures the signs of this 
wonderful change having been wrought in the minds of the 
Apostles and other diciples of Jesus. You must allow, that it 
was beyond all comparison the most astonishing revolution that 
ever took place in the views and feelings of human beings. 
Yet you cannot point out, in the sacred History, any signs 
whatever of this change having been wrought and manifested. 
I ask if this be possible, on the supposition that the facts were 
as the Trin: arian must believe ? But another view may be 
taken of the subject. We may consider the effects which this 
announcement of the proper deity of Christ must have pro- 
duced not only on the minds of his own disciples, but also on 
the minds of his enemies. It is well known, that the Jews in 
general did not believe in our Saviour. They continued to be 
the bitterest enemies of Christ, of his Apostles, and of his 
religion. Their ingenuity and malignity were constantly upon 
the stretch, to discover the most popular and formidable object 
tions to the Gospel. You know that the Acts of the Apostles, 
and the Epistles, abound with accounts of various controversies 
carried on between the unbelieving Jews and the Apostles, 
The writings of Paul, in particular, chiefly consist of answers 
to objections, and explanations of difficulties, put forward by the 
Jews against the new religion of the Gospel, We meet with 
controversies concerning the observance of the Mosaic Law, 
and on many other points opposed to the prejudices of the 
Jewish nation. But was there any controversy between the 
unbelieving Jews and Apostles concerning this, the most startling 
and strange of all the doctrines of the Gospel, the doctrine of the 
proper deity of him who had been crucified on Calvary ? Not 
a word of this kind is any where to be met with. We know, 
to a certainty, that with the views which all the Jewish people 
entertained of the nature of the true God, such a doctrine as 
this would have appeared to them the strongest and most fatal 
of all objections to the Gospel; indeed, the most revolting and 
insulting dogma that ever was presented to the human mind. 
In this light they most assuredly would have regarded it; and 
yet their is no sign, in the Scriptures, of their having ever urged 



LECTURE THIRD. 



this objection to the Gospel, in all their disputes with the followers 
of Jesus. I ask, again, if this be possible, on the supposition 
that the facts were as the Trinitarian believes ? There is still 
another circumstance, which requires to be attended to in this 
connexion. If this doctrine of the deity of Christ be true, 
surely the Apostles must have felt it to be their solemn duty, 
to make it a prominent subject of their teaching; and especi- 
ally would they have put it foremost, on all those occasions 
when they had to state the leading and fundamental principles 
of Christianity, whether to Jews or Gentiles; for instance, 
when Peter addressed the multitudes at Jerusalem on the day 
of Pentecost, immediately after his mind had been enlightened 
concerning the truths of the Gospel, by the descent of the Holy 
Spirit; and again, when he visited the house of Cornelius, 
having been sent there on purpose to communicate the essential 
truths of Christianity to a serious and devout inquirer. Could 
he have neglected such opportunities of preaching this sup- 
posed fundamental doctrine of the Gospel ? Could any modern 
Trinitarian Missionary have done so in similar circumstances ? 
Yet, on these occasions, Peter speaks of Christ merely as "a 
man approved of God; v whom "God had raised from the 
dead; whom God had anointed with the Holy Spirit and with 
power; who went about doing good, for God was with nim." 
In short, he speaks of Christ precisely as Unitarians are accus- 
tomed to speak of him, without uttering one syllable concerning 
his proper deity. And the language of all the other Apostles, 
on all similar occasions, is entirely of the same character. How 
is this to be accounted for? You cannot say, that it is because 
we have in the Scriptures only very brief accounts of the 
preaching of the Apostles. That would rather seem to be a 
reason that we should expect to find, in these narratives, some 
mention of so essential and important a doctrine of their 
religion. Yet it is not from these sourees, that the Trinitarian 
is able to derive even his imaginary inferential evidence for the 
deity of Christ. Neither can you say, that the Apostles con- 
cealed this obnoxious truth, lest it should expose them to 
reproach and persecution. That would be to bring a very 
groundless and unjust accusation against them. We know that 
they did bravely expose themselves to obloquy, and persecution, 
and death, in defence of many other truths and principles of the 
Gospel which Trinitarians themselves consider to be of less 
importance. It was the boast of the Apostles, that they were 
<( pure from the blood of all men, for that they had not shunned 
to declare unto them all the counsel of God." I can perceive, 
therefore, no other reasonable account for the silence of the 
Apostles concerning this doctrine, even on the most urgent 
occasions, but simply that it was a doctrine with which they 
were totally unacquainted. 

5. My next and last general consideration, is one of a very 
serious nature, and one which I confess that I bring forward 

G 



152 



LECTURE THIRD. 



with some reluctance. It is a consideration which T would 
not urge, if it were not that I have a strong feeling of my obli- 
gation to do so, in order to render full justice to the important 
argument in which I am engaged. I submit to you, then, that 
Christ is not God, because if he be, then, whatever may be said 
in creeds, there are, to all practical purposes, tivo Gods ; that ! 
is, two perfectly distinct objects of supreme religious adoration 
and service. Now, I am very well aware that the Trinitarian 
controversialist will deny this. Trinitarians declare, that they 
believe in and worship only one God. I am quite satisfied of 
their sincerity in making such a declaration. Therefore, let it 
be clearly understood that I do not take upon myself, absolutely 
to charge Trinitarians with being Polytheists, or Tritheists, or 
worshippers of more than one God. I know that they would 
repudiate such a charge with indignation. I acknowledge that 
they have an undoubted right, as I and all other Christians have, 
to give and to abide by their own account of their own faith. 
Therefore, I say, let it be distinctly understood, that [ do not 
absolutely pronounce that Trinitarians serve a plurality of 
Gods. But then, it must also be understood, that my only 
reason for not saying so, is simply because I am aware that they 
sincerely and earnestly deny it, and because I feel myself bound 
to show respect to their sincere declaration. Nevertheless, 
when I am discussing the truth of their doctrine, I hold myself 
at liberty, merely as a part of my argument, to state my own 
conscientious views on this subject. I submit to you, therefore, 
not as a matter of accusation, but simply as a matter of argu- 
ment, that Christ is not God, because then, whatever may be 
said in creeds, there are practically at least two Gods to be 
devoutly served and worshipped. Recollect, my brethren, that 
I am not now speaking to you about your creeds. Creeds, you 
know, are altogether human compositions. I am not speaking 
to you merely of certain propositions, which learned Theolo- 
gians in past ages may have drawn up, and to which you may 
now be willing enough to declare your assent. I am speaking 
to you of your own real, practical, religious views and sentiments* 
I wish you for a moment to forget your creeds, and to look into 
your minds and hearts, where alone true religion abides; and 
to ask yourselves, what are your actual impressions and feel- 
ings, when you worship, severally, God the Father, God the 
Son, and God the Holy Ghost? when you praise God the 
Father, for sending God the Son to be the Saviour of the world, 
and when, in the next breath, you praise God the Son for mer- 
cifully undertaking this gracious work ? Are they not, in your 
minds, in your mental conceptions and feelings, regarded as 
two distinct beings? as much so as Peter and Paul, or any 
other two persons of whom you ever think and speak ? If it be 
not so, if I am entirely mistaken on this point, then 1 grant 
that my present argument, as far as you are concerned, falls to 
the ground. But I declare to you solemnly, that it seems to me 



LECTURE THIRD. 



63 



quito impossible tbat it should be otherwise, in the minds of 
all those who are any thing more than nominal Trinitarians. 
In order to set this consideration in its true light, suffer me to 
remind you where and how you become acquainted with the 
Father and the Son. It is not from the Athanasian creed, it is 
from the New Testament, that you acquire all your real know- 
ledge, concerning these persons. How, then, are they 
uniformly spoken of in the New Testament? What is the 
impression which is unavoidably made on your minds, by a 
perusal of the Scriptures, concerning the Father and the Son ? 
Is it not, that the Father sends the Son, and the Son acknow- 
ledges himself to be the messenger of the Father? Is it not, 
that the Son says to the Father, " Not my will but thine be 
done?" Is it not, in fact, that they sustain certain relations to 
one another, and act certain parts towards one another, from 
thejbeginning to the end of the Sacred History ? And since it is 
undoubtedly so, I ask you, if it be possible for you to conceive of 
Jesus Christ and his Heavenly Father otherwise than as two per- 
fectly distinct beings, or persons ? And if it be undoubtedly so, 
I ask you again, whether this does not practically destroy the 
great principle of the unity of God, and introduce two Gods, 
that is to say, two distinct beings or persons, each of whom 
is to be religiously served and worshipped? I will urge this 
consideration no further. I beseech you to think of it again 
and again ; reflect on it closely and seriously; ponder it well 
in all its consequences, until you are fully satisfied in your own 
minds; and then I have no doubt what will be the conclusion at 
which you will arrive. 

And now, my Christian brethren, and my Trinitarian 
friends in particular, I think I have stated all the general 
considerations which I meant to lay before you. Do me the 
favour to recollect what I said at the beginning of this 
Lecture ; that these general considerations are not brought 
forward by me, as being in themselves decisive against 
believing that Christ is God, in opposition to the testimony of 
any portion of Scripture. By no means. They are brought 
forward by me, only as strong grounds, — I think they are 
reasonable grounds, — for suspecting the doctrine of the deity 
of Christ, if you have any serious doubts as to the meaning of 
the controverted passages of Scripture ; and especially tor 
rejecting that doctrine without further hesitation, if you should 
be convinced, as I myself am thoroughly convinced, that all 
those passages are fairly susceptible of an interpretation 
consistent with our belief in the sole, exclusive deity of the 
Father. Let it be clearly understood, at all events, that this is 
my own account of my own argument. I will not be mis- 
understood — I may be misrepresented, — I will not be mis- 
understood on this subject. I have not said, and I do not mean 
to insinuate, that these, or any other general considerations, 
will justify us in rejecting the doctrine of the deity of Christ, if 



H4 



LECTURE THIRD. 



we believe that this doctrine is taught in any part of the 
Scriptures. My own belief in the sole deity of the Father 
does not rest entirely on such general considerations ; still less 
is it founded entirely on the dictates of nay own reason. My 
belief in the sole deity of the Father, and my disbelief of the 
proper deity of Christ, are founded on my thorough persuasion 
that the former is the plain, uniform doctrine of the Scriptures, 
and that the latter is not taught in any single passage. 

After all, I know that it is very easy for a person to take 
his stand upon certain passages of Scripture, which, because 
they happen to be obscure or ambiguous, it is impossible for 
the Unitarian to prove, to a demonstration, may not refer to the 
deity of Christ. It is easy, I say, for a person to take his stand 
on certain passages, or even on a single passage, of this kind, 
and to say, " This you cannot absolutely confute, and therefore 
on this ground I shall build my faith in the proper deity of 
Jesus Christ." I can only answer, that every man must be 
guided by his own feelings of what is right and proper ; but to 
my mind, this appears to be a very wrong and a very improper 
method of judging on this subject. It may, perhaps, be called 
a rigidly logical method of reasoning. I doubt very much if it 
be so ; but even if it is, it may be none the better for that, if it 
be a method of reasoning entirely unsuitable to the nature of 
the subject, and the nature of the evidence. I hold, that this is 
not a suitable theme for the exercise of mere logical pertinacity. 
I hold, that it is a plain subject, on which our judgments should 
be determined by the plain testimony of the Scriptures. 1 do 
not mean to speak disparagingly of the useful science of logic; 
nor do I mean to concede for a moment, that they who argue 
for the Trinitarian doctrine are any better logicians than 
other people. But I say, that it is not by subtle rules of logic, 
so much as by rational principles of Scriptural interpretation, 
that this religious controversy is to be decided. I humbly 
conceive, that those persons who will say, — " Notwithstanding 
that there is but one God, and the Father is God, and Jesus 
Christ is a distinct person from the Father; notwithstanding 
that this doctrine of the deity of Christ is nowhere explicitly 
stated in the Scriptures, as other doctrines, even less important 
doctrines, are stated, but is left entirely to human inference; 
notwithstanding that Christ is uniformly spoken of, in the Scrip- 
tures, as being subject and subordinate to the Father^ who is 
declared to be the only true God ; notwithstanding that Christ 
was unquestionably a man, and is every where represented in 
the Scriptures as enduring all those trials and sufferings, which 
God cannot, and which none but a creature can, experience; 
notwithstanding that we meet in Scripture with no signs of the 
wonderful and awful change, which must have been wrought in 
the minds of our Lord's first disciples, by the discovery that he, 
whom they had seen and handled, was Almighty God; not- 
withstanding that the doctrine of the deity of Christ is never 



LECTURE THIRD. 



€5 



alluded to by the Apostles, in their preaching*, even on those 
most important occasions when they had to announce the 
fundamental principles of their religion ; notwithstanding thaj 
, this objection never appears to have been urged against the 
I Gospel, at its first publication, by the unbelieving Jews, although 
pt is certain that it would have been to their minds the strongest 
\i all objections ; notwithstanding that this doctrine of the 
Iteity of Christ does seem to destroy the practical value and 
wfluence of the doctrine of the unity of God, by introducing 
tl(0 distinct objects of supreme religious adoration ; notwith- 
standing all this, yet, because there are a few passages of 
So 'pture from which the deity of Chiist may be in a certain 
ma ner inferred, therefore we will so interpret those passages, 
ammwe will believe that Christ is God ;"— I humbly conceive 
that those persons who argue and judge in this way, are 
i-.ing a very unjustifiable method of reasoning. They may 
>?at logicians. Tbey are not, however, good reasoners, 
jrius far, the very worst of reasoners, because they reason 
•way altogether unsuited to the nature of the evidence and 
or the' subject. 

Bhrhaps I shall be expected to say a few words, in con- 
clusion, on the moral influences of the Trinitarian and 
Unitalan Doctrines respectively. It is a theme on which I 
feel thRt I could expatiate long and largely; but not, T fear, 
withoug the risk of saying that which might appear invidious. 
On thigbranch of the subject, therefore, which is but collateral 
to the nlain argument, 1 shall be very brief. I apprehend, that 
we areEall of us very indifferent judges of the value and 
innuendo of other men's religious sentiments. We know the 
value a§3 efficacy of our own faith, having felt and proved its 
power. I We cannot so well judge of the efficacy of a faith 
which \« have never experienced. I can only testify, that to 
the bestwf my humble judgment, — whether that be altogether 
blinded,lor moderately enlightened, God alone knows, — but 
having qj^en a Minister of the Gospel for more than fifteen 
years, I |an only testify that to the best of my judgment, I have 
seen the^ Jnitarian faith produce, in very many instances, on 
the hearpi and conduct of men, and on the departing spirit, all 
that is ne cessary to complete the salvation and the happiness of 
human H ings. I will not proceed to controvert what I have 
lately he§ rd advanced, on this head, in favour of the Trinitarian 
doctrinej I will not venture to tell you of all the influences 
which ilhink I can discern in the popular faith. It is very 
possible Ithat I may be mistaken in this respect; it is very 
certain, feat f o my Trinitarian hearers I should appear to be 
mistake&| But you will allow me to state, in a few words, what 
influenc&, I discern in the Unitarian view of Christianity. I 
perceive % it, all that is calculated to fill the mind of a serious 
believer, Amongst us, as amongst all sects, there are undoubt- 
edly some%vho are not serious,) therefore I sav, all that is 

g3 



M 



LECTURE THIRD* 



calculated to fill the mind of a serious believer, with a deep, 
humbling sense of his own personal unworthiness in the sight 
of God; and with a most lively conviction of the wonderful 
compassion and all-conquering love of Christ; and with a 
devout feeling of the infinite, forgiving mercy of God; and with 
an awful sense of the great malignity and danger of sin ; and 
with a solemn dread of the judgment which awaits the impenitent, 
and equally, with the joyful anticipation of the glory, honour, 
and immortality, prepared for all the sincere followers of the 
Lord Jesus Christ. 

In regard to the Atonement, I deny that there is any thing 
in the Unitarian view of the person of Christ at all inconsistent 
with the doctrine delivered in the Scriptures, on this important 
subject ; any thing inconsistent with the belief of a most inter- 
esting and affecting doctrine of Atonement, which is, the 
reconciliation of sinners unto God. I know, indeed, that our 
view of the nature of Christ is inconsistent with the present 
popular notions of the Atonement, which make it to consist in 
an infinite satisfaction having been made to the justice of God, 
by the blood of his own infinite Son. But then I beseech you 
to consider, that this, again, is not a statement of the Scrip- 
tures, but a mere inference which some men draw from the 
language of Scripture, a mere human explanation of the 
Atonement. With all that is actually delivered in the Scrip- 
tures, concerning the reconciliation of sinners unto God, through 
faith in Christ, and through the efficacy of his sufferings and 
death, —with all this, I will ever contend that the Unitarian 
doctrine is perfectly consistent. 

In regard to the forgiveness of sins, X am ready to 
acknowledge, that the Unitarian doctrine is not adapted to 
foster any of those sudden convictions and conversions, any of 
those unseemly expressions of triumphant confidence, which a 
very natural abuse of the popular doctrine, if not the doctrine 
itself, too often produces. And I fearlessly appeal to every 
sober-minded believer, of every Church, whether this be not an 
argument rather for than against our views of the Gospel. But 
I am sure, that the Unitarian doctrine can produce, in the mind 
of every sincere believer, a strong and peaceful sense of the 
forgiving mercy of God ; such a feeling as it becomes a frail 
and dependent creature to cherish, I protest that, of all the 
charges commonly preferred against the Unitarian faith, this 
charge of its being cold, dead, and inefficacious in its moral 
influences on the heart, seems to me the most preposterous. 
In the views which it gives of the attributes, ways, and purposes 
of God ; in the representations which it affords of the mind that 
was in Christ Jesus, so holy and so meek, so full of piety 
towards God, and of compassion to men ; in the solemn truths 
and promises, the means of grace and hopes of glory, which it 
holds out to the faithful ; the Unitarian doctrine seems to me 
powerful to awaken, in the bosoms of all true believers, emotions 



LECTURE THIRD. 



67 



as ardent as they are pure, as full of a steady and genial warmth, 
as they are free from the grossness and violence of feeling, to 
which certain popular errors so frequently lead. Can any man 
give me a reason why the contrary should be supposed ? Why 
should simple and rational views of religion be thought inca- 
pable of powerfully affecting the heart? Does it absolutely 
require the mystery, the perplexity, and the terror striking 
dogmas, of the popular creed, to influence a mind at all disposed 
to cherish sober and rational piety ? The principal points on 
which we differ from Trinitarian Christians, relate to the strict 
Unity of God's nature, and the strict Paternity of his character 
and ways. We believe that God is One, to the exclusion of all 
personal divisions and distinctions, of whatever kind. We 
believe that he is a Father, and acts always as a Father towards 
all his intelligent creatures. We hold these doctrines of the 
divine Unity, and the divine Paternity, free from all admixture 
with any opinions of a contrary tendency ; and thus we allow 
these great truths to operate with all their proper, concentrated 
energy, on our affections of reverence, admiration, gratitude 
and love. Whatever of true and proper deity the orthodox 
system ascribes to Jesus, we of course ascribe to the only true 
God, the Father. I contend, therefore, that nothing is lost by 
ns, so far as relates to furnishing the mind with a suitable 
object for the exercise of all its devout and trustful affections ; 
unless, indeed, Trinitarians mean to say, that they enjoy an 
advantage over us, in having three objects of supreme adoration 
instead of one. We have One infinitely holy and compassionate 
Being, to love with all the heart, with all the mind, and with all 
the soul. Have they more than One ? or if they have, is it 
possible that they can so love more than One? It likewise 
appears to us, that our views of the nature of Christ enable us 
to understand more clearly, to appreciate more justly, and to 
feel more strongly, the glorious example of all righteousness 
which Jesus exhibited as a man, sanctified and devoted unto 
God. Jesus is not, to our minds, the same object of reverence 
and love as God, his and our heavenly Father. He is a per- 
fectly distinct ubject of reverence, but one greatly adapted to 
call forth the warmest and strongest sj'mpathies of our hearts. 
We behold in him, one of our own race, carried onwards by his 
unutterable love and compassion for men, by the wonderful 
strength of his piety and of his benevolence, through unex- 
ampled sufferings, shame and death, for our salvation. Believing 
in such a Saviour, therefore, and believing, at the same time, 
in one all-merciful God, his Father and our Father, is it possible 
that we can be destitute of a faith abounding with all good 
moral and spiritual influences ? Oh no ! depend on it, that this 
accusation against the Unitarian doctrine is in every point of 
view frivolous and vexatious. 

And now, my Christian friends, I close the discussion of 
this subject for the present. Whether I shall feel myself 



LECTURE THIRD. 



called on soon to resume the controversy, will depend entirely 
on circumstances. I shall certainly not be backward to exercise 
the right of doing so, if it shall appear to me necessary, in 
vindication of those principles which I believe to comprise the 
truth as it is in Jesus. In particular, if the proper subject shall 
be departed from, in order to attack the conduct and personal 
character of Unitarians, I shall appeal confidently, not so much 
to the charity, as to the justice of 'my Christian neighbours, of 
every sect and party, for an impartial hearing, in defence of 
myself, and the people with whom I am connected, against all 
such accusations. But I hope and trust that nothing of the 
kind is likely to occur on the present occasion. I am very 
sensible, how inadequately, compared with what some others 
might have done, I have vindicated the great and glorious 
principle of the sole deity of the God and Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. But I have the comfortable satisfaction of 
feeling, that I have not conducted this controversy in any unfair 
or uncharitable manner. 1 have manifested no sentiments of 
contempt or bitterness towards those who differ from me. I 
am not conscious that I have ever turned aside from the sub- 
ject, to cast aspersions upon the body of Trinitarian believers 
in general, or upon the Church of England in particular, which 
in her proper religious capacity, as a venerable portion of the 
Universal Church of Christ, I respect and esteem in the highest 
degree. I have indulged in no reflections on the Clergy of 
that Church, nor on any individual Clergyman. And I crave the 
liberty of saying, that if I have, (as I hope is the case,) abstained 
from every thing of this kind, it has not been because I have 
kept a bridle on my tongue, but because I have no feeling in 
my heart which could induce me to act otherwise. 

Allow me, my Christian brethren, finally, to exhort you to 
search for the knowledge of the truth in all sincerity, and to 
embrace and profess what you believe to be the truth in peace 
and love. Let us always remember, that whatever may be our 
present unavoidable divisions, we have all one Father in 
Heaven, and one Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. 



END OF THE FIRST SERIES. 



LECTURE FOURTH * 



JOHN, c. 1., v. 1. 

" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
was with God, and the Word was God." 



My Christian Friends, — 

When I last addressed you, I stated that whether I should 
feel myself called on to resume the discussion, in which I was 
then engaged, on the unity of God, would depend entirely on 
circumstances. You are aware that the circumstances to which 
I must have been supposed to allude have now occurred. The 
gentleman to whom I am opposed in this controversy has 
returned, according to his promise, and delivered four more 
discourses, in support of the doctrine of the deity of Christ and 
of the Trinity. It is my intention, therefore, now to deliver 
three more Lectures. In commencing my task, however, I will 
first make you one or two promises. I promise you that, on 
this occasion, I will not take up one moment of your time in 
paying compliments to my reverend opponent. I find that I 
have been complained of for doing so on the former occasion. 
I have no desire to recall or recant any thing of that kind which 
I may have said, because I am conscious that it was uttered at 
the time in perfect sincerity. I certainly did understand it to 
be the declared wish and intention of my reverend opponent, 
that a Christian and courteous spirit should pervade this con- 
troversy throughout. I was therefore most anxious to second 
what I understood to be his sincere wishes in this respect, by 
saying all that I could say with truth, — not a word more, — of a 

* The reader of these Lectures may need to be informed that, 
after the conclusion of the former three, the Rev. Daniel Bagot 
returned to Exeter, from a distant part of the kingdom, and delivered 
four more discourses in St. Sidwell's Church, to which the following 
three Lectures were given in reply. 



70 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



civil and conciliatory nature towards him. Was this such an 
unpardonable error? My friends, — if I thought him a man of 
truly candid and charitable dispositions, — if I thought him a 
man incapable, after he had himself begun the controversy with 
solemn declarations that he disapproved of all asperity and 
acrimony of spirit in religious discussion, and having by his 
own public challenge induced me to reply, who, but for the 
confidence that I placed in those declarations, should have 
disdained to meddle with the controversy, — if I thought him a 
man incapable after this, the moment he felt reason and Scrip- 
ture to be against him, of resorting to accusations of ignorance, 
audacity, effrontery, perverseness, and scepticism, against his 
opponent, — if I thought him such a man as would not, when he 
found his argument exhausted, betake himself to vituperation, 
and to the utterance of ten thousand times refuted slanders upon 
the pious dead, — if I thought all this of him, and if I was 
mistaken, (which I leave to be decided by your impartial 
judgment), I do yet venture to hope, that it will be consi- 
dered to have been an error on the right side; — and I am 
now very willing to make my opponent the only reparation 
in my power, by thus publicly begging his pardon for having 
fallen into such a deplorable mistake. I again promise you 
that I will not, on this occasion, take up a moment of your 
time in paying him compliments for his liberality and can- 
dour. But, on the other hand, if T can at all trust my own 
feelings, 1 may likewise promise you that I shall not resort 
to the employment of any abusive or offensive language, j 
will not, at every turn of the argument, — (especially whenever 
I meet with some strong reasoning of my opponent which 
I may feel it difficult to answer, and therefore may wish to 
raise a mist of passion and prejudice before your eyes, that 
you may not see clearly what predicament I am in,) — I will 
not, at every such turn of the argument, talk of my oppo- 
nent's ignorance, audacity, blindness, and effrontery. If I 
felt ever so strong an inclination to do so, I should be afraid 
to venture upon it; and I will tell you why. I should be 
afraid that, the moment you heard me talk in this strain, 
you would be apt to say to yourselves, — " Ah ! that man 
evidently feels that he has the worst of the argument; when 
a disputant turns aside from the direct and sober discussion 
of his subject, to charge his opponent with perverseness 
and audacity, and a thousand other evil qualities, it is a 
tolerably sure sign that he is not able to maintain his 
opinion by any better means. " I say, that I should fear 
you would draw this conclusion in my case, if I were to 
resort to such a course of vituperation ; and therefore, if I 
felt ever so strong an inclination this way, (whereas I feel 
none at all,) I should yet carefully abstain from it as an act 
of good policy. If therefore any of my present hearers, who 
may likewise have been his hearers during his last four 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



71 



discourses, shall be of opinion that my reverend opponent 
in this controversy is one of the most temperate, candid, and 
withal, humble-minded controversialists that ever adorned 
the Christian ministry, — even within the pale of the dignified 
Church of England, — I faithfully promise them that they 
6hall not hear from me any contradiction of this fond 
opinion. I think, nevertheless, that if you will give me 
your patient attention to the close of these Lectures, f shall 
be able to shew you that my reverend opponent is chargeable 
with a greater number of mistakes, sophistries, misrepresent 
ations, and some other things which I cannot so well describe, 
than almost any man ever committed, on any subject, within 
the same limits. I am aware that if this assertion shall appear 
to you in the end to be totally unfounded, it will then tell 
against me. I know this; I feel it; yet I do not hesitate to 
make the assertion. 

Suffer me now, before I enter on the particular topic with 
which I must chiefly occupy your attention this evening, just to 
state, in a few words, the course T mean to pursue in regard to 
the general subject. I shall deliver three Lectures, including 
the present. In these Lectures I shall take notice of the fresh 
arguments and objections lately brought forward by my oppo- 
nent ; but I shall notice them in that way •, and to that extent 
with respect to particularity of details, which my own judgment 
teaches me to be the best adapted to keep the real question, and 
the real evidence by which it must be decided, directly and 
perspicuously before your attention. On this point I shall be 
influenced by no man's dictation, by no man's jeers or scoffs. 
It is a very pleasant thing, indeed, for my opponent to tell me, 
that if he chooses to bring forward passage after passage 
without number, running on with race-horse swiftness from 
Genesis to Revelation, as though it were the quantity and not 
the quality of Holy W rit, as though it were the mere sound and 
not the sense of Scripture, by which the controversy is to be 
determined, — that I am bound, minutely to examine and 
confute every single text which he may produce, and thus, you 
perceive, occupy the whole time allowed me for the defence of 
what T believe to be divine truth,— or, if I pass by a single 
passage without examination, I must thereupon acknowledge 
myself to be defeated in the argument! I say, it is a very 
pleasant thing for my opponent to tell me this ; and, no doubt, 
if he could induce me to submit to it, he would then have me 
completely in his own power, to conduct me, as it were, in his 
own leading strings, wheresoever he pleased. He would then 
only have to quote text upon text without limits, — (which the 
poorest controversialist may do endlessly on almost any 
subject,) — and whether I saw much evidence, or little evidence, 
or no evidence at all, in those texts of Scripture, I should be 
obliged, at his bidding, minutely to examine them all, and 
thereby preclude myself from all opportunity of discussing that 



n 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



which I may happen to know is the real evidence, by which the 
question will be ultimately decided, in the mind of every person 
who can discern the difference between sound and sense. But 
I beg 1 leave to decline being led exactly in this way by my own 
antagonist. If I deal with this great and serious argument in 
any respect dishonestly, or disingenuously, vou, my Christian 
friends, are not so dull but you can perceive it : and certain it 
is, that the great majority of you are not so prejudiced in my 
favour, as that you would be likely to overlook such a circum- 
stance. If I deal with the argument unfairly, therefore, it is my 
own cause, and not the opposite cause, which will suffer from 
my conduct. But I have been long enough acquainted with 
this controversy, to know the difference between that class of 
Scriptural evidences, which have some weight in them, and which 
do affect the minds of serious and thinking people, — and that 
other class of arguments, which it is easy for a dexterous contro- 
versialist to bring together from all quarters, in order to raise a 
mere cloud of words and texts wherewith to blind the eyes of those 
who are called to judge upon the subject. I say that I know the 
difference between those two classes of Scriptural arguments. 
For the latter class alone I care little or nothing, because I 
know their worth ; I know that they never yet have produced, 
and never will produce, conviction, in the mind of any 
unprejudiced person. They are the mere tools with which 
popular controversialists do their work. In respect to argu- 
ments of this class, therefore, I shall examine such a number of 
them, or rather so many of each kind, as I think may be 
necessary to shew you the real nature of the evidence which is 
thought to exist in them ; and when I have done this, I shall 
leave all other arguments of the same kind to share the fate of 
their fellows. But when I find that arguments are produced, — 
and I acknowledge that several such have been produced by my 
opponent in his late discourses, — which have some real weight in 
them, and which I know do affect the minds of honest, impartial, 
inquirers, — these I will particularly examine, and give you my 
full opinion of their meaning". But especially, wherever I have 
been charged, in reference to my former arguments, with 
having given you ignorant and false representations of matters 
of fact, with which I confess that I ought to have been 
acquainted, before [ stood up here to discuss a great question 
of religious truth, — in every such case, I will directly meet the 
charge, and I will either confute it by the most indubitable 
evidence, or I will freely acknowledge my error. Understand 
me rightly on this point. I am not going to trouble you with 
any defence of myself against mere general accusations of 
ignorance and incapacity. Whether I am justly liable to such 
accusations or not, is a question on which I neither desire nor 
expect you to feel the slightest concern. All which I mean to 
say is, that where any specific charge of ignorance or misre- 
presentation, in my former statements, has been brought against 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



73 



me, every such instance I will directly meet and examine, and I 
will either confute the charge, or acknowledge the error. Thus 
much I feel is owing 1 to you, who may have placed any reliance 
on my statements; and, above all, it is due to the sacred 
importance of that divine truth which I stand up here to 
advocate. 

Jn this manner, then, I will hereafter proceed to reply to 
the last four discourses of my reverend opponent, as far as time 
will permit. But first, in the present Lecture, I shall occupy 
your attention, chiefly, with an examination of this remarkable 
passage, the Introduction of the Gospel according to John. I 
will discuss this passage fully. I will tell you ail that I know, 
and all that T think about it, instead of going into a minute 
scrutiny of a hundred feeble and irrelevant texts. I will do so 
on this principle, that my object has been, from the beginning 
of this controversy, not to seem to gain a personal triumph over 
my opponent, but to avail myself of this opportunity of assisting, 
if possible, those who are seriously inclined to search for the 
truth. If I can, in the least degree, promote a spirit of free, 
serious, unprejudiced jnquiry on this subject, — I shall then be 
amply satisfied ; I shall feel that I have my reward ; — and 
whether I, or my opponent, may appear to have personally the 
advantage in this present controversy, I shall care as little as I 
care for the dust upon my feet. 

You have been told, that in my former brief observations 
on this Introduction to John's Gospel, I manifested such a 
degree of ignorance of the Greek language, as would have dis- 
graced a schoolboy of twelve years old. I ought to have 
known, you have been told, that the Greek term (Xoyos) Logos> 
which is used here, does not mean ivisdom ; but that (c-o<p/<x) 
Sophia, is the term that signifies ivisdom, and that Logos means 
fVord, as it is here translated. Now I happen to know all this 
full well; because, as my reverend opponent says, this first 
chapter of John is the earliest lesson commonly given to a 
schoolboy when he begins to learn Greek. But 1. beg leave to 
say, that I never asserted that the term Logos in itself properly 
signifies wisdom, I never found fault with the common trans- 
lation in this place. I admit that the translation is correct ; I 
think that no other English rendering could be well substituted. 
What I did say was this, — that the subject, of which the Apostle 
is here treating, under the peculiar denomination of the fVord^ 
that this subject is the ivisdom, or rather, " the operating power 
and wisdom of God." Every person acquainted with such 
matters will see, that there is a great difference between the 
assertion which I actually made, and that which is ascribed 
to me by my opponent. The one assertion, I grant, if I had 
made it, might have shewn my ignorance ; the other I hope to 
prove to you is perfectly correct. You have also been told, that 
the reason why I declined entering more at large into the con- 
sideration of this passage, in my former Lectures, was because 

H 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



I felt conscious of my inability to reconcile it with my doctrines, 
and that I merely wished to see if my opponent would " leave 
me a loophole to creep through." This is not the only instance 
in which such jeering 1 remarks have been thrown out. I care 
nothing for them. But my friends, if I thought myself justified 
in taking up your time with such idle talk, why might I not as 
well say, that instead of a mere " loophole to creep through," 
he has left a broad archway, through which I mean to ride in 
triumph, with a long train of Scriptural proofs to swell the 
pomp of my procession, and to lead him as a vanquished foe at 
my chariot wheels. I grant that it would be egregious nonsense 
to talk so ; but wherein would my vapouring be worse than his 
scoffing? I have no wish whatever to indulge in any such 
observations. We come here for more serious purposes. Let 
us proceed at once to an examination of this passage of 
Scripture. 

I will first state to you the main features of the two inter- 
pretations ; and then consider the evidence by which they are 
respectively supported. The Trinitarian believes, that the 
TVord here means our Lord Jesus Christ personally ; that it is 
his proper name or title, as the second person of the Godhead ; 
and therefore that it is here most distinctly and emphatically 
declared that our Lord Jesus Christ is God, The interpret- 
ation which I adopt, as a Unitarian, is, that the Word here does 
not signify our Lord Jesus Christ, but that it was a term 
employed in the times of the Evangelist, and in writings with 
which he must have been familiar, to signify " the operating 
power and wisdom of God," or God himself as manifested to 
men in his works and ways. These, in the main, are the two 
opposite interpretations. Let us now examine the evidence by 
which they are thought to be supported. 

First, then, it is necessary for me to shew that this ex- 
pression, the VTord) is not a proper name, or a fixed and 
distinguishing title of Jesus Christ, in other parts of Scripture, 
in such a manner as that, when we meet with it here, we are 
bound in reason and consistency to understand at once that it 
means Jesus Christ. It is necessary for me to shew this ; 
otherwise the Trinitarian may seem to have a great advantage 
in this respect, to which I am persuaded that he is not 
entitled. If, for instance, it were plainly written in this place, 
that our Lord Jesus Christ was in the beginning, and vias with 
God, and was God, there would then be little or no room for 
dispute. Whatever we might even then suppose to be the 
entire meaning of the sacred writer, we should certainly know 
that he meant to assert something concerning our Lord Jesus 
Christ, personally considered. But I deny, that the Word is 
in this manner a settled name or title ot Jesus Christ in the 
Scriptures. The evidence that has been produced for this 
opinion seems to me extremely fallacious. I will briefly 
examine it. The commencement of the Gospel according to 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



75 



Luke has been appealed to for this purpose : — Forasmuch as 
many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of 
those things which are most surely believed among us, even as 
they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were 
eye witnesses, and ministers of the word." It has been thought 
that by the "word," here, is meant Jesus Christ, because the 
Apostles or first disciples are here called " ministers of the 
word" But it may just as well mean, what it must be allowed 
that the expression does most commonly mean in the Scrip- 
tures, — namely, the doctrine of Christ, or the gospel. I perhaps 
ought to have mentioned this circumstance before. It should 
be remembered, that this expression, Logos, which is here 
translated word, occurs very frequently in the New Testament, 
— perhaps several hundred times ; and that, with the exception 
of four or five instances at the utmost, it confessedly does not 
mean Jesus Christ ; but either it means any saying, or discourse^ 
or it means, the discourse of Jesus Christ in particular, his 
doctrine, his teaching, his heavenly instruction, his gospel* For 
example, when we read that the Apostles " preached the word," 
and that their converts " heard the word," and u received 
the word," we understand the expression in this sense. It may 
surely have this meaning then, in this passage of Luke; for 
the Apostles were ministers of the doctrine or word of Christ. 
We commonly speak at this day of " the ministers of the 
gospel." I find this, in fact, to be the sense in which the passage 
is taken by many of the best commentators ; and there is another 
passage in the same Evangelist, which appears to settle the 
meaning beyond all reasonable dispute. It is in the beginning of 
the 6th chap, of the Acts of the Apostles, (v. 3, 4 :) " Wherefore, 
brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, 
full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over 
this business," — the distribution of daily alms to the poor 
widows, — " but we will give ourselves continually [to prayer, 
and to the ministry of the word" This undoubtedly means the 
preaching of the gospel. 

Another supposed instance of the use of this expression, 
"the Word" for Jesus Christ personally, is found in the 
beginning of the 1st Epistle of John : — " That which was from 
the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with 
our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have 
handled, of the Word of life." It might here be observed that 
" Word of life," is a different' expression from " Word" 
simply, and may have a different meaning. I am decidedly of 
opinion, however, that " Word of life" in this place does not 
signify Jesus Christ personally, but the gospel,* or doctrine, of 
Jesus Christ. It will be admitted by every competent judge, 
that the translation of the passage in our common version is not 
perfectly correct. It is not properly " of the word of life." It 
is not in what we call the genitive, or possessive case ; but there 
is a distinct preposition used by the Apostle, which signifies 



76 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



" about," " relating to," "concerning." The proper rendering 
of the passage therefore would be, " That which we have heard 9 
which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled, 
concerning the word of life," or, " relating to the word of life." 
This at once alters the character of the passage, and it becomes 
evident that " the word of life" may mean, as " the word 7 
commonly does mean, the gospel. How shall we determine in 
which sense to understand the expression ? We should look to 
the only other passage in which the same expression occurs in 
the Scriptures, and see what it means there. We find it in the 
2nd ch.of the Epistle to the Phillipians, v. 15, 16 : " That ye 
may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke^ 
in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among 
whom ye shine as lights in the world ; holding forth the word of 
life ; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ that I have not run 
in vain, neither laboured in vain." Here it is too evident to 
admit of a doubt, that " the word of life" means, not Jesus 
Christ personally, but the gospel or doctrine of Jesus Christ. 

The next passage to be examined, is in the 19th ch. and 
13th v 3 of the Apocalypse. " And he was clothed in a vesture 
dipped in blood, and his name is "called, The Word of God." 
This is a real instance, and I btlieve the only real instance, in 
which Jesus Christ personally is denominated the Word, or 
rather, the Word of God. Now it is to be observed again, that 
this expression, " the word of God," occurs between forty and 
fifty times in the New Testament, and always means the gospel,, 
or doctrine of Christ. This, of itself, surely renders it 
improbable, that the expression should likewise be a proper 
name or title of Jesus Christ himself. But this circumstance^ 
you will perceive, does not make it at all improbable, that the 
expression should be once or twice applied to Christ descriptively ; 
not as a proper and permanent name, but only for the occasion, 
to describe bis office and character, as the Revealer of that 
which is properly the " word of God," namely, the gospel. I 
will endeavour to illustrate my meaning by a parallel instance. 
In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. 1, v. 18, " For the 
preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but 
unto us which are saved it is the power of God" Here the 
preaching of the cross, or the doctrine of the gospel, is called 
the power of God. Now, in the 24th v. the writer applies the 
same expression to Jesus Christ personally : — " Unto them 
which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of 
God, and the wisdom of God." Does it follow from this, that 
the expression " Power of God" becomes henceforth a proper 
name of Christ, so that wherever it occurs we are bound to 
understand that it means Jesus Christ personally? By no 
means; nor has such an inference ever been drawn. He is 
here once called "the power of God," descriptively, because the 
gospel is so called, and he was the Revealer of the gospel. In 
the same manner then precisely 3 he is once denominated the 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



77 



« Word of God,'' which is also a common designation of his 
gospel. It does not follow from this, that either the simple 
expression " the word," or, " the word of God," becomes 
henceforth a settled title of Jesus Christ, or that it is elsewhere 
ever applied to him. 

There is indeed one clear instance in the Scriptures, 
as they stand in our common version, which, if it were 
genuine Scripture, would be directly to the Trinitarian's 
purpose in this argument. It is in the 5th ch. and 7 th v. of the 
1st Epistle of John:— "For there are three that bear record in 
heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost ; and these 
three are one." Here there can be no doubt, that Jesus Christ 
himself is called the JVord, and that he is so denominated in his 
personal distinction, and in reference to his divine nature, as the 
second person in the Godhead. But every man in the slightest 
degree acquainted with these subjects knows, that this is not 
genuine Scripture. There is no occasion for me to support this 
assertion by evidence, because the truth of it is so notorious. 
My reverend opponent has never alluded to this passage ; nor 
could he do so, as an honest reasoner and a scholar, being fully 
aware, as he must be, that the proof of its spuriousness is 
so overwhelming as to compel even Trinitarian critics to 
abandon and condemn it, almost without an exception. This 
passage therefore must be entirely set aside ; but I cannot set 
it aside without making one observation upon it. You see 
here, in a passage of confessedly later date than the genuine 
Scriptures, in a passage undoubtedly written by a Trinitarian, 
in what manner Christ is denominated the Word, as the second 
person in the Godhead. Now, if the Apostles were Trinitarians, 
if they entertained the same views of the person of Christ, how 
is it to be accounted for, that no such passage is to be found in 
their genuine writings? Every reader must draw his own, 
inference from these premises. 

I conclude therefore, on these grounds, that this expressipn, 
" the Word," is not a proper Scriptural name or title of Jesus 
Christ, so as to preclude all further research on the subject. 
The field is still open for inquiry. We are bound to ascertain, 
from the best sources of knowledge within our reach, what the 
Evangelist probably meant by " the Word," in this Introduction 
to his Gospel. Now, I am free to acknowledge that I under- 
stand the expression here, (as I have clearly shown you that the 
Trinitarian likewise does,) in a somewhat different sense from 
that which it commonly bears in the Scriptures. In this 
respect we are upon an equal footing. The difference between 
us I conceive to be this the Trinitarian here gives a sense to 
this expression which is entirely arbitrary, which in fact is 
drawn out of his own doctrine, aud presupposes the truth of 
that doctrine ; whereas I understand the expression in a sense 
which I will endeavour to shew, by independent evidence, must 
have been familiarly known to the Apostle when he wrote his 



78 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



Gospel. It is useless?, as appears to me, to seek for light on 
this subject in the phraseology of Gentile or Philosophical 
writers, with which we are not certain that the Apostle was 
acquainted. We must search those writings, and consider 
those modes of speech, which we are sure were known to this 
Evangelist, as a Christian and a Jew. 

First, then, we may consult the Canonical Books of the 
Old Testament. We shall there find that it is a general, pre- 
vailing form of expression, that God does all things by his word v 
or by a ivord. Even where this precise term does not occur, 
(though 1 will shew you that it does occur frequently), yet, in 
fact, the same idea of the mode of the divine operation is often- 
times presented. God performs all his wondrous works by a 
tvord, by a command. For instance, in the original account 
of the creation, we read that God said, Let there be light, 
and there was light;" and " God said, Let the earth bring forth 
grass, and the earth brought forth grass." Thus all things 
were originally brought into existence through the word of God. 
We find the same language employed respecting many miracles 
and extraordinary works of providence. In describing the 
wonders of God in Egypt, (Psalm 105, v. 34), the Psalmist says, 
" He spake, and the locusts came, and caterpillers, and that 
without number." This phraseology, in fact, is very common 
in the Psalms. "He spake, and it was done, he commanded, 
and it stood fast," (Psalm 33, v. 9.) " By the word of the 
Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by 
the breath of his mouth," (Psalm 33, v. 6.) This passage 
shews what we are to understand by " the word of the Lord," 
in such connections,— that it means, not any distinct person, 
but literally a word, or audible voice ; — for it is expressed in 
the second and parallel clause of the sentence, by u the breath 
of his mouth." Again, " He sendeth forth his commandment 
upon earth, his word runneth very swiftly." (Psalm 147, 
v. 15.) Here we see that the Word of God is personified, as I 
shall contend that it is in the Introduction of John's Gospel ; 
the personal action of running very swiftly is here ascribed to 
the Word. You clearly perceive, then, from these examples, 
that it is the common phraseology of the old Testament, that 
all the divine works are wrought by the word of God. 

Now, there can be little doubt, that at first this expression was 
understood by the Jews almost or quite literally. In their rude 
state of mind, when they were first delivered from Egypt, they 
would be likely to understand that all these wonders were per- 
formed, literally, by the word or voice of God. But when the 
minds of this chosen peoplebecame expanded, and their views of 
the nature and ways of God more refined, they would necessarily 
discern that this was but a figurative mode of expression ; that 
no mere word could have produced the creation ; but that in 
truth it was by the mind of God, by the will and intelligence 
of Gcd, by the operating power and wisdom of God, that the 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



70 



creation was really effected. In this way, as the views of the 
Israelites concerning the works and ways of God became more 
intellectual and more spiritual, they would naturally come to 
attach a more refined and spiritual sense to this expression, 
"the Word." It appears to me, that we have a striking proof 
of this change in the apprehensions of the Jews concerning 
the spirit of God, (which is very much the same thing as the 
ivord of God), in a passage which I have already quoted from 
the Psalms. We find that the creation is first ascribed to the 
word of God ; and immediately afterwards, in the parallel 
clause, it is ascribed to the breath of his mouth. Both expres- 
sions were probably at first taken almost literally. But the 
breath of God is the spirit of God; in the original Scriptures 
the very same word which means breath, or wind, also means 
spirit. Now, we are quite certain, that the Jews in the time of 
our Saviour understood by the spirit of God, not literally the 
breath of God's mouth, but his invisible, omnipotent energy, 
operating upon his works and creatures. In short, the minds 
of the Israelites had then undergone that very change in regard 
to the spirit of God, which I now suppose them to have under- 
gone in their conceptions of the word of God. I will tell you 
what appears to me to be the plain and the whole truth of the 
matter ; though I cannot here enter into a consideration of all 
the evidence by which my opinion might be supported. It 
appears to me, that the word, or the word of God, meant pre- 
cisely the same thing as the spirit, or the spirit of God; the 
only difference was, that the former term, hoyos, word, had 
grown into use amongst the Hellenistic Jews, as they were 
termed, the Jews who lived out of Palestine, in Greek cities, 
and employed the Greek language; whilst the latter term, 
irvtv^a, breath, or spirit, had been retained by the Jews of 
Palestine. This opinion is confirmed by various circumstances 
relating to this Gospel of John. There is good reason to 
believe that this Apostle passed the latter portion of his days, 
and wrote his Gospel, out of Palestine, amongst the Hellenistic 
Jews. He would be very likely, therefore, in the introduction 
of his narrative, to adopt a mode of expression familiar and 
agreeable to those with whom he was living. But when he 
comes, in the narrative itself, to relate the actual discourses of 
Jesus Christ, which were delivered to the Jbws of Palestine, 
he would then, as naturally, drop the use of the term Word, 
and employ the equivalent term Spirit, which we find to be the 
case in all the subsequent parts of his Gospel. 

We cannot reasonably expect to find many instances of 
this more refined understanding of the expression, " the 
Word," in the Canonical books of the Old Testament; because 
the latest of those books was probably written more than four 
hundred years before the time of our Saviour, and consequently 
before the conceptions of the Jews, respecting the Word of 
God, had completely undergone the change which I have 



80 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



stated. Bat there are other Jewish writings, which being of a 
much later date, indeed shortly before the time of our Saviour, 
maybe expected to afford us more of this kind of evidence. I 
allude to the Apocryphal writings of the Jews, and especially 
that remarkable production, entitled the " Wisdom of Solomon." 
This, you know, was not written by Solomon, nor in his days ; 
it is generally thought to have been written by some Hellenistic 
Jew, a few years before the advent of Christ, We possess it 
only in the Greek language ; and it probably never existed in 
the Hebrew. Now, in this book we meet with frequent and 
hold personifications of the Word of God. In the J 6th chap. 
16th verse, we read, "That thy "children, O Lord, whom thou 
lovest, might know, that it is not the growth of fruits that 
nourisheth man ; but it is thy word which preserveth them that 
put their trust in thee." Here we perceive that the works of 
Providence, which we know to be really the effects of God's 
power and wisdom, are distinctly ascribed to the word. The 
Word is here also in some measure personified, since it is said 
to " preserve" men. Again, in chap, 9, v, 12, " O God of my 
fathers, and Lord of mercy, who hast made all things with thy 
word, and ordained man through thy wisdom." Here likewise 
the work of creation is ascribed to the wo?'d, as it is in the 
Gospel ; and its meaning is here explained, in the parallel 
clause, to signify the wisdom of God. We have next a most 
sublime and poetical passage respecting the Word. It is well 
worthy of your attention for its own intrinsic beauty, independ- 
ent of the light which it casts on the question we are at present 
discussing. The writer is speaking of the destruction of the 
first-born of the Egyptians, — and he says, (chap. 18, v. 14, 15, 
16.") " For while all things were in quiet silence, and that 
night was in the midst of her swift course, thine Almighty 
Word leapt down from heaven, out of thy royal throne, as a 
fierce man of war into the midst of a land of destruction, and 
brought thine unfeigned commandment as a sharp sword, and 
standing up filled all things with death , and it touched the 
heaven, but it stood upon the earth." 

It cannot with any truth be said, that such personifications 
of the attributes of God were entirely unknown to the Jews. 
You must all remember the very striking instance of this kind 
of personification, which occurs in the 8th chapter of the 
Book of Pioverbs. The Wisdom of God, (which in fact is very 
much the came thing as the Word of God), is there boldly 
personified, and similar acts and qualities are ascribed to it, as 
in this Introduction to John's Gospel are ascribed to the Word. 
" The Lord possessed me, Wisdom, in the beginning of his way, 
before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from 
the beginning, or ever the earth was," (verses 22, 23.) " When 
he prepared the heavens, I was there ; when he set a compass 
upon the face of the depth ; then I was by him, as one brought 
up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



81 



before him." (verses 27 and 30.) They who could thus person- 
ify the divine Wisdom, might surely personify the divine Word, 
which is but the operating power and wisdom of God, as 
manifested in creation and providence. 

It must needs be allowed, however, that we can form no 
adequate conception of the ideas which the Jews attached to 
this expression, by merely consulting the original books of 
the Old Testament, nor even from the Apocrypha. The 
reason is this ; that in the time of our Saviour, the Jews 
did not familiarly employ the pure Hebrew, in which the 
books of the Old Testament are written. I do dot mean 
that they did not understand this language; but they had 
lost the familiar use of it, during their captivity in Babylon ; 
and they now used a mixed dialect, which is called the 
Chaldee. Into this dialect the books of the Old Testament 
had been translated, or rather, they had been freely para- 
phrased, for the benefit of the Jews, as is generally thought, 
before the time of Christ, ^This Chaldee paraphrase may have 
been to the Jews of our Lord's day very much what the 
common English version of the Bible is to us in the present 
day. JVow, in this Chaldee paraphrase, we meet with fre- 
quent mention of " the word of God," signifying the operating 
power and wisdom of God, the mind of God, or God himself. 
I am about to read to you an extract on this subject, from 
the writings of the learned Bishop Pearson. And this gives 
me an opportunity of noticing some remarks which have lately 
been made upon my conduct, in appealing to such testimonies, 
on points of learning and matters of fact. In my previous 
Lectures, I have quoted the sentiments of such men as Martin 
Luther, Calvin, Bishop Lowth, Erasmus, Grotius, and others, — 
not, I call you to witness, not as being of any ultimate authority 
on questions of religious faith, — but only as authorities res- 
pecting the sense of a word, or an expression, or some peculiar 
phraseology of the Scriptures. What says my reverend 
opponent to all this? Why he says, forsooth, that he cares 
nothing for the opinions of great men ; he cares nothing for 
human wisdom or human learning, (though you must have 
observed that he makes a free use of his own learning, whenever 
he thinks he can thereby support his argument,) he casts all 
such authorities aside, he "throws them all overboard," and he 
is guided by the Bible alone. My brethren, do you not see the 
real object of all this declamation ? You know, and my 
reverend opponent knows, that we all profess to be guided by 
the Bible in the formation of our religious opinions. The 
question between us is, not concerning the authority of the 
Bible, on which we are all agreed, but concerning the meaning 
of the Bible; and when this is the simple question in dispute, 
I do think that it might not be altogether beneath even our 
dignity, wise and learned as we doubtless are, to avail ourselves 
of the assistance of men who spent their entire lives in the 



82 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



laborious study of the Bible. Let me endeavour to illustrate 
this by a similar instance. Let us suppose that two country 
attorneys, in their zeal for their respective clients, differ 
respecting the sense of a particular word, or a particular clause, 
in a certain Act of Parliament. Some renowned Counsel, 
learned in the Law, is applied to for his opinion on this parti- 
cular point; perhaps a second and a third authority is consulted, 
and they all agree in delivering the same opinion. Thus, one 
of the contending parties obtains an opinion entirely in 
accordance with his own judgment. But when he presents 
this opinion to the attention of the other party, he imme- 
diately turns round upon him, and exclaims, " Oh ! 1 care 
nothing for your learned authorities, 1 treat them all with 
perfect contempt, * I throw them all overboard,' I am guided 
in my practice by the Law, the Law is my only authority." 
Would not this be considered strangely nonsensical ? Would 
not every one perceive that it was a mere subterfuge to escape 
the force of that which could not be otherwise answered ? 
We must all abide by the Law; the only question relates to 
the true meaning of the Law. I say the same thing with 
regard to the Bible. This also is my sole authority in matters 
of faith, My only object is, to ascertain the true meaning 
of the Bible; and to this end, I have no objection to avail 
myself of whatever help I can obtain, from the labours of 
pious and learned men of all Churches ; neither do I think that 
you will have any such objection ; and therefore I shall 
continue the practice of quoting such authorities, whenever 
it shall appear to me useful. Yes! my reverend opponent 
may cast all such authorities overboard, if he pleases, when- 
ever their testimony is against him ; but being thrown 
overboard they will not sink, they will float down the stream 
of their own immortal reputation, and shine as lights to 
guide the serious and sober-minded inquirer in his search 
for truth, long after all empty declamation, and all the arts 
of a popular rhetoric, and a still more popular logic, are 
buried for ever in the fathomless depths of oblivion. 

I will now read to you the opinion of Bishop Pearson 
respecting the sense of this expression, "the Word," in the 
Chaldee paraphrase of the Jews. 

" I conceive this Chaldee paraphrase to represent the 
sense of the Jews of that age, as being their public interpre- 
tation of the Scripture. Wherefore what we find common and 
frequent in it, we cannot but think the vulgar and general 
opinion of that nation. Now it is certain that this paraphrast 
does use the word of God for God himself ; and that especially 
with relation to the creation of the world. As Isaiah 45, v. 12, 
I made the earth and created man upon it saith the Lord ; which 
the Chaldee translateth, / by my word made the earth and 
created man upon it ; chap. 48 v. 13, My hand also founded the 
earth .* the Chaldee, by my word also I founded the earth. And 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



83 



mo9t clearly, Genesis 1, v. 27, And God created man : the 
Jerusalem Targum, the word of the Lord created man. And 
Genesis 3, v. 8, They heard the voice of the Lord God : the 
Chaldee paraphrase, They heard the voice of the word of the 
Lord God" 

There are some examples, in this Chaldee paraphrase, of 
the use of this expression in reference to other persons besides 
God, and plainly in the same sense. 

"In the Targum on Numbers 15, v. 32, the paraphrast 
renders the text thus ; a certain man said in his word I will go 
forth and gather sticks on the sabbath day ; that is, said within 
himself. Again on Ecclesiastes 1, v. 13, Solomon said in his 
word, vanity of vanities is this whole world ; in his word y that is 
in himself" 

I have now shown you, from sources which no man can 
deny to have been well known to the Evangelist, in what sense 
he would be likely to employ this controverted expression. Let 
me now proceed to apply these facts to the interpretation of the 
passage under review. 

" In the beginning was the Word." This idea the Evan- 
gelist repeats, in the second verse : — " The same was in the begin- 
ning with God." It is of no consequence, in regard to my 
interpretration, whether we understand by " in the beginning," 
from all eternity, or, before the creation of all visible things, or 
in what sense soever we understand it. It is clear that the 
Word,\x\ the sense already explained, as signifying the power 
and wisdom by which God operates upon his works and manifests 
himself to his creatures, this IVord was in the beginning ; it is 
eternal. This, in fact, is the same proposition, the same 
sentiment, as we meet with in that fine passage of the 
Proverbs, to which I have before directed your attention. 
Wisdom is there said to have been "in the beginning," "from 
everlasting," " or ever the earth was." 

The Evangelist likewise affirms, that " the Word was with 
God ;" and in the sense in which I understand the phrase, it is 
plain that the Word must have been always with God, being an 
inseparable portion, as it were, of his own eternal nature. God 
is the uncreated fountain of all power and wisdom ; and all 
things which are the effects of power and wisdom, have their 
origin from Him. This also is the same thing which is 
affirmed of Wisdom as personified in the Book of Proverbs: — 
" The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his ways ;" " I 
was by him, as one brought up with him; and I was daily his 
delight, rejoicing always before him." The Evangelist at 
length declares that the " Word was God," or, "God was. the 
Word;" for it may fairly be translated either way; indeed, it 
is a curious fact, that the latter rendering was adopted in the 
older version of the Bible in the time of Henry VII I. , and by 
Martin Luther in his German version. But the two propo- 
sitions, on the principle of my interpretation, are perfectly 



84 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



identical, " God was the Word," or, " the Word was God." 
Now, I contend that the Evangelist here distinctly affirms the 
Unitarian doctrine. Taking the terra God in the sense in 
which it is commonly, nay, uniformly employed throughout 
the Scriptures, to signify the one Allmighty Being who was 
the God of the Jews, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, 
and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, I maintain 
that the Apostle here strikes at the root of the Trinitarian 
error; for he declares that the Word, so far as it is to be 
considered a real Person, is that one God himself. Having 
first personified the Word, as I have shewn you is done in other 
parts of Scripture, he now, — as though on purpose to guard 
against the idea of any plurality of divine persons, — affirms that 
the Word was God, the only true God himself. 

We are next informed (v. 3) that " All things were made by 
him ; and without him was not anything made that was made;" 
or, " all things were made by it, and without it was not anything 
made ;" for either translation is equally allowable, so far as the 
original Greek is concerned ; and it is again a curious fact, that 
all our earlier English translations have it in the latter way. 
The pronoun in the original is, indeed, necessarily masculine, 
because both (Xoyos-) Word, and (Qsoi) God, are of the mas- 
culine gender; and therefore we cannot determine with 
certainty to which the pronoun refers. I am disposed to think 
that it refers to the Word, because the preposition which the 
Evangelist employs, when he says " all things were made by 
it," is one which properly signifies instrumentality. But this 
again is of no consequence, in regard to the defence of the 
Unitarian interpretation. The Word, so far as it means a 
real Person, is God himself ; and therefore whether we read 
by it or by him, it is equally plain and true that all things were 
made by the Word. I find that some observations have been 
made on this verse, tending to shew that it is proper creation 
which is here spoken of. I do not know with whom my 
reverend opponent thought himself to be arguing, when he 
made these observations. Certainly not with me ; for I have 
never denied that it is proper creation of which the Evangelist 
is here treating. 

We next read that "in him ," (or "in it," for again the 
reference of the pronoun is ambiguous), but let us read, if you 
please, "In him was life ; and the life was the light of men. 
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness compre- 
hended it not." Tt is uncertain, whether by the life, and the 
light of men, the Evangelist means that life-giving truth and 
energy, which originally dwelt in God and was manifest to the 
world through Jesus Christ, or whether he means Jesus Christ 
himself. T believe that Unitarians in general understand it in 
the former sense, but Trinitarians in the latter, although, as I 
will presently shew, this gives a meaning which is utterly incon- 
sistent with their own doctrines, I am inclined, however, to 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



85 



agree with the Trinitarian so far, — that the Evangelist may 
mean our Lord Jesus Christ himself. This is rendered pro- 
bable by the verses which immediately follow, where the writer 
sa} s that John the Baptist was not the true light, but " was sent 
to bear witness of that light." Now we know that John the 
Baptist came to bear witness to our Lord Jesus Christ, personally 
considered. We know also that in other parts of this same 
Gospel, our Saviour is denominated u the life," and " the light 
of the world." I am inclined therefore to believe, though the 
point is uncertain, that the Evangelist does here mean our Lord 
Jesus Christ himself. Understanding the passage in this sense, 
then, I contend again that the Evangelist here directly con- 
tradicts the Trinitarian, and confirms the Unitarian doctrine. 
If the Life, the Light of men, means Jesus Christ, it is plain that 
the Word cannot mean Jesus Christ. And why not ? Because 
the Life, the Light of men, is here expressly said to have been 
in the Word; and in what possible sense could any person be 
said to be in himself? There would be no conceivable meaning 
in such an expression. I think the Evangelist means that the 
Word, or God, (for they are identical,) and Jesus Christ were 
united ; that there was an intimate spiritual union existing 
between them. If you ask me why I so understand the passage, 
it is because I find that such is the meaning intended to be 
conveyed by this same Evangelist, in other parts of his writings, 
where he employs the same mode of expression. For example, 
he represents our Saviour as saying to his disciples, (ch. 15, v. 
5) " Abide in me f and I in you ; as the branch cannot bear 
fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye except 
ye abide in me f and again, in his first Epistle, ch. 2, v. 24, he 
says that all true disciples are "in the Son, and in the Father. ,, 
This is universally understood to mean, that they are morally 
and spiritually in union with the Son and with the Father, by 
faith and love. When therefore it is said, that our Lord Jesus 
Christ, the Light of men, was in the Word, or in God, I 
understand it to mean that Christ and God were in a peculiar 
manner spiritually united, or that the Word, the operating 
power and wisdom of God, dwelt in Jesus Christ. And this I 
take to be the plain Scriptural doctrine concerning our 
Saviour. 

The verses immediately following scarcely .require any 
remark. The Evangelist simply relates, that John the Baptist 
came to bear witness to Jesus, who was the true Christ. 
" There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The 
same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all 
men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but 
was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true 
Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world," 

We read, in the tenth verse, " He was in the world, and 
the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." 
Who is meant by the pronoun " He ?" Does it mean the 

i 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



person mentioned in the previous verses under the name of the 
Light, or does it refer hack to the first four verses, and mean 
the Word, or God? The original Greek does not immediately 
determine this question ? There is nothing answering to the 
English pronoun " He" but the nominative to the verb is left 
to be supplied ; and looking only to the first part of the verse, 
we might supply it by either the Light, or the Word, or God. 
But when I look forward to the end of the verse, I see that it 
is no longer doubtful ; for there the pronoun is used in the 
original, as in the English, where it is said, " the world knew 
Mm not;" and the pronoun is in the masculine gender, clearly 
shewing that it does not refer to the Light, which in the 
original is neuter, but either to the Word, or to God, which in 
the original are both masculine. I therefore take the passage, 
from the sixth to the ninth verses inclusive, to be parenthetical. 
The Evangelist having spoken of Jesus in the fourth and fifth 
verses, as being in spiritual union with the Word, or with God, 
and as being thereby constituted the Life and the Light of men, 
turns aside for a moment, to distinguish between this true 
Christ and John the Baptist. Some ecclesiastical writers 
account for this by the fact, that there were persons in that 
age who were inclined to follow John the Baptist rather than 
Jesus. But the Evangelist, having condemned this error, 
returns to the subject of which he was treating, and says, that 
?' He," God himself, or the Word, which is the operating power 
and wisdom of God, "was in the world, and the world was made 
l>y him, and the world knew him not." The expression em- 
ployed in the original most commonly signifies the world of 
mankind ; and the Evangelist probably alludes to the heathen 
world, who knew not the true God, though his power and 
wisdom were ever manifested among them. 

It is said in the next place, that " He came unto his own, 
and his own received him not. But as many as received him, 
to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them 
that believe on his name: which were born not of blood, nor of 
the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." All 
this, I think, plainly relates to the dealings of God with the 
people of Israel. They are often denominated his own chosen 
people, and he came unto them by especial manifestations of 
his power, wisdom and goodness. Many of them did not 
receive him, piously and submissively ; for they are often 
represented as a rebellious people against the Lord their God. 
But to as many as did thus receive him, he gave the happy 
privilege of being regarded and treated as his peculiar children ; 
and they are called, in the Old Testament, " sons of God." 

The Evangelist proceeds, in the fourteenth verse, to 
speak of the redemption of the whole world, by the power 
and wisdom of God so gloriously manifested through the 
man Christ Jesus. In this way of interpreting the passage, 
you see that there is a clear and beautiful connexion in all 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



37 



which the Evangelist here delivers. He first speaks of the 
Word as having been in the beginning, from all eternity, 
with God, and as being, in fact, the spirit or mind of God 
himself; then, as having been exercised in the stupendous 
work of creation ; then, as having been long manifested to 
all the world of mankind, who were its workmanship, and 
who too commonly knew not God, though he was ever in 
the midst of them ; then, as having been in a particular 
manner displayed to the chosen people of Israel ; and finally, 
as being conspicuously manifested in the true Christ, the man 
whom God had ordained to be the Saviour and judge of the 
world. 

" And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." 
By fleshy in the Scriptures, is meant humanity, human nature, 
or a human being , as when the Apostle Paul says, that " by 
the law can no flesh be justified;" that is, no human being. 
The declaration of the Evangelist in this place, therefore, 
is, that the operating power and wisdom of God in some 
sense became a human being, in the person of Jesus Christ. 
Now, I am not concerned, as against the Trinitarian, to shew- 
in what precise sense this assertion is to be understood. No 
believers, not Trinitarians more than others, understand it in a 
perfectly literal sense : it were absurd and impious. Perhaps 
some may understand it in too high, and some in too low a 
sense ; but this is entirely a matter of opinion and personal 
feeling, in which every man must judge for himself. I 
certainly believe that the Word of God, or God himself, was 
united to the man Christ Jesus, in a peculiar, spiritual, and 
mysterious manner, such as was never approached by any other 
human being. But this is a question which does not come 
within the present controversy. All which I am concerned to 
prove, as against the Trinitarian, is, that whatever be meant by 
*' the Word becoming flesh," the Word does not signify any 
second person of the Godhead, but God himself, even the 
Father, the only true God. In short, I do not deny, you will 
observe, that the Word was eternal ; I do not deny that the 
Word was God; I do not deny that all things were made by 
the Word; I do not deny that the Word became flesh; I do 
not deny any thing which the sacred writer here affirms. 
I only deny that strange, unwarrantable inference, which you 
draw from his language, that momentous addition which you 
make to his teaching, — namely, that the Word means some 
second divine person. 

The Evangelist then says, "and we beheld his glory," 
(that is, I apprehend, the glory of this flesh, this human person, 
to whom the Word was united,) " the glory as of the only 
begotten of the Father," (or rather, as the original would be 
more correctly rendered), "glory as of an only begotten son 
from his Father, full of grace and truth." 



88 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



I have now, my brethren, laid before you that which, as a 
Unitarian, T humbly conceive to be the true meaning of this 
sublime passage of Scripture. Permit me to direct your atten- 
tion, for a moment, to the great moral beauty and value of the 
passage, when so interpreted. There is here nothing, you 
perceive, to obscure the great principle of the Unity of God ; 
nothing to confuse our ideas of that fundamental doctrine of 
the gospel, that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the 
only true God; nothing to distract our thoughts and feelings 
with the contemplation of two divine persons, whilst we are 
solemnly charged to acknowledge and worship only one God. 
But I maintain that there is in this passage, as we understand 
it, every thing calculated to inspire our hearts with fervent 
adoration and gratitude towards the Father of mercies; every 
thing to fill us with reverence and love towards the Lord Jesus 
Christ; everything to give us high and worthy conceptions of 
the glorious gospel of our Saviour. Consider what it is that 
is really taught here, according to our interpretation. It is, 
that the infinite, eternal Wisdom, which existed always with 
God, and was an unchangeable part of his own all-perfect 
nature, the Wisdom by which all things were made, and by 
which all things are sustained and governed, — this Wisdom in 
the fulness of times dwelt in, and was manifested through, the 
Lord Jesus Christ. It pleased the Father that in him the ful- 
ness of divine power and wisdom should dwell ; and of his 
fulness did the Apostles receive; and so may we likewise if we 
be his faithful disciples. His doctrine was " the word." He 
himself was the Word ; for it was not merely by the teaching 
of Christ, but more especially by Christ himself, by his holy 
life and character, that such a glorious display of divine power 
and wisdom was made to the world. I ask you, my friends, 
whether this view of the passage, whilst it harmonizes with the 
rest of Scripture, and with every dictate of enlightened reason, 
does not set the Lord Jesus Christ before our minds in the 
most sublime, interesting, and affecting light ? This, at all 
events, is the light in which Unitarian Christians do regard the 
Lord Jesus Christ; and it is for so regarding him, that we are 
represented as little better than infidels, and as persons who 
seek to dishonour our Redeemer ! For his revered name's 
sake we have long borne these reproaches ; and I trust that we 
shall never suffer ourselves to be moved by them from the faith 
that we embrace, as the pure doctrine of the Scriptures. 

I have trespassed on your attention, my brethren, even 
longer than I thought would be necessary on this subject. 
Suffer me now to occupy the short portion of time which 
remains, by commencing my observations on the late discourses 
of my reverend opponent. 

In the first place, I find that he has accused me of having 
left some essential links of my argument wholly untouched. 
In particular, he says that I did not prove, as I was bound to 



LECTURE FOURTH, 



do, that the Father alone is God. Tt is acknowledged that if 
i had proved, not only that there is but one God, not only that 
the Father is God, hut likewise that the Father alone is God, I 
should then have established mv own doctrine, and have refuted 
the Trinitarian doctrine. But you have been told, that the 
latter proposition, namely, that the Father alone is God, I never 
so much as attempted to prove. Now, T ask you, my brethren, 
whether this assertion is true? Did I not attempt to prove 
that the Father alone is God? Whether I succeeded or not in 
my attempt, is quite another question, which you must each 
decide for yourselves ; but did I not attempt it? Did I not 
argue this point, at length, from several distinct passages of 
Scripture in which the Father is declared to be " the only 
true God," and in which it is declared that " to us there is but 
one God, the Father V 1 Did I not endeavour to shew the 
fallacy of all those ingenious devices, by which the Trinitarian 
advocate labours to evade the testimony of these passages to 
the sole, exclusive deity of the Father? I certainiy did so; 
and therefore I say that, when you heard it affirmed that I 
nerer so much as ff/fem/?ferf to establish this essential point of 
my argument, you must have known that you were listening to 
a very incorrect and unfair statement of the facts. 

In the next place, you have been told that I did not so 
much as attempt to prove, not merely that there is but one God, 
but also that God is but one person, that there is but one person 
who is God. Now I ask you again, whether this assertion is 
true? Did I not attempt to prove this point also? Did 1 
not take for my text, in the third Lecture, the remarkable words 
of the first corn man dment, " Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, 
the Lord, is one ?" Did I not endeavour to shew, from the sense 
in which the Jews always unquestionably understood this 
commandment, as it had been delivered by Moses; from the 
sense in which the Scribe evidently understood it when it was 
quoted and re-asserted by Jesus ; from the approbation which 
Jesus expressed of the meaning which the Scribe attributed to 
his words ; did I not argue on these grounds, that the plain, 
obvious meaning of this'comraandment is, that there is but one 
person who is God ? But you have been reminded, that although 
Jesus did, in general terms, approve of the Scribe's answer, yet 
that be only said that he was "not far from the kingdom of 
G-od ;" and you have been assured, that the deficiency of the 
Scribe consisted in his ignorance of the proper deity of Christ. 
I need not tell you, my brethren, that this is a perfectly gratu- 
itous assumption ; yet it is one, perhaps, of which I ought not to 
complain. It seems, then, on the authority of Christ himself, 
that a Unitarian may be very near the kingdom of God. This 
is more than the disciples of Christ, in these latter ages, have 
commonly been willing to allow. But on the subject of this 
objection, I must take leave to deny that it was at all my busi- 
ness, as a Unitarian, to prove affirmatively that God is but one 

i 3 



90 



LECTURE FOURTH, 



person, or that there is but one person who is God. It is very 
preposterous in the Trinitarian to give such an account of the 
state of the argument. What do we mean by the word God ? 
Do we not mean a person, a living intelligent being, or person ? 
When it is said therefore in Scripture, or elsewhere, that there 
is but one God, is it not the plain and obvious meaning of this 
declaration, that there is but one person in existence who is 
truly and properly God ? Is not this the sense in which every 
man would first, and naturally, understand such a declaration. 
If it has any different meaning, therefore, is it not entirely the 
business of the Trinitarian to prove this by some indubitable 
evidence ? Take any other name, or any other word, which 
necessarily signifies a person ; the word King for example. 
When it is said that there is but one King, is it not the plain 
and obvious meaning of this assertion, that there is but one 
person on the face of the earth who is properly a King ? I say 
again, that it is a complete perversion of the true state of the 
argument, for the Trinitarian to charge me with an essential 
omission, because I did not prove, affirmatively, that the one 
God is one person. It is entirely his own business to prove the 
contrary, if he thinks that the understandings of men will much 
longer receive such a palpable contradiction. 

In the next place, you have been told that I have overlooked 
the all-important difference between three Gods, and three 
divine persons, three persons who are each truly and properly 
God. It appears that I ought to have paid especial attention to 
this difference. You are assured that there is a difference 
between three Gods and three divine persons, so great and so 
essential, that whilst the belief of the one would be the error of 
heathen polytheism and idolatry, the admission of the other is 
the only true Christian faith and worship. Now, when I first 
came to this statement of my reverend opponent, I confess that 
I began to feel a little elated. It was very foolish of me, because 
I had so often been deceived before in the same particular ; but 
yet I did once more begin to hope, that we were at length 
approaching to a clear and free consideration of the real 
question in dispute. " Here," I said to myself, " is a positive 
assertion, that there is a most important difference between 
three Gods and three divine persons. Now, then, let us hear 
what the difference is." Alas! not one word, not one syllable, 
are we favoured with on this point! Do let me beseech you, 
my brethren, to consider how your understandings are dealt 
with in this matter. You are told that there is a difference 
between the belief of one proposition and the belief of another, 
so great, that whilst the one would be heathen polytheism, the 
other is the necessary foundation of all true religion; and yet 
you are not assisted in the slightest degree in comprehending 
how you are to distinguish between the one and the other. Is 
this just ? Is it fair ? As I stated to you in a former Lecture, I 
am not in the habit of saying that Trinitarians believe in three 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



91 



Gods, because I know they deny and detest the charge. But 
suppose I were to say, what I can truly say as a Unitarian, 
that I see no difference whatever between three Gods, and three 
divine persons who are each truly and properly God. I am 
clear in my own convictions, that the popular doctrine of the 
Trinity either amounts to no meaning at all, or it amounts to 
absolute Tritheism. That they are one in being, or in essence, 
as you say, will not alter the case ; unless you so explain this 
vague expression as to destroy their separate personality, which 
you must not do, for this would destroy your doctrine. How- 
ever, I do not wish to set up my opinion on so serious a matter, 
as authority to which any other human being can be expected to 
tow down. I may be altogether in the dark on the subject; I 
am very willing to be better informed. You tell me that there 
is a great and most important difference. Do have the kind- 
ness to tell me precisely, or if that be impossible, as nearly as 
you can, in what this difference consists ? Not one word, not 
one syllable of information on this point, can I obtain. This is 
not only treating me as a heretic very unkindly, since, if I 
could perceive the difference, perhaps I might abandon all my 
objections to the Trinity ; but methinks it is treating you, my 
friends, who rest your hopes of salvation on the doctrine, very 
unceremoniously. 

In the next place, my reverend opponent has examined the 
argument which I endeavoured to derive for the strict unity of 
God from the first commandment, as delivered in the 6th chap, 
and 4th v. of Deuteronomy. He says, that this was meant only 
as a declaration of there being but one God, in opposition to 
the polytheism or many gods of the heathen, and not in oppo- 
sition to the supposed Christian doctrine of a plurality of divine 
persons. I am very willing to grant this ; and I am willing to 
grant, moreover, that I cannot produce a single passage of 
Scripture, in which the present doctrine of the Trinity was 
meant expressly to be alluded to and condemned; for the plain 
reason, that no such doctrine made a part of any religion until 
long after the Scriptures were written. It is a strangely ridi- 
culous demand which the Trinitarian makes upon me, when he 
calls upon me to produce any such passage. The Scriptures 
declare, simply and clearly, without reserve or explanation of 
any kind, that there is but one God, and that God is one. They 
set this forth as the first of all the commandments, the funda- 
mental principle of all true religion. The inspired teachers, I 
grant, originally made this declaration in opposition to the 
polytheism of the heathen, in opposition to every notion 
which men had then acquired of a plurality of gods. It is 
entirely for you to shew, that this plain declaration of the 
Scriptures does not apply to your doctrine of three divine 
persons, as strongly as it applied to the polytheism of the 
ancient idolators. But when you came to that point, as we 
have just seen, you peremptorily decline the task; you say 



92 



XECTURE FOURTH. 



there . is a ^reat difference, but you will not tell us what the 
difference is. 

My reverend opponent, however, discovers even in this 
very commandment a distinct proof of a plurality of divine 
persons. This proof consists in the plural form of the 
Hebrew woid, Elohim, which is here translated God. It is 
an old argument, my brethren, but it is an argument which I 
had thought was grown out of use amongst candid, intel- 
ligent. Trinitarians. Certainly, the word is in the plural form ; 
and perhaps it may be impossible to say why it is so. There 
are many things of this kind, the causes of which are hidden in 
the dark and remote origin of languages. Not only in the 
Hebrew, but in most or all other languages, there are certain 
words which are always found in the plural, though the objects 
to which they are applied are singular. Ami, from so trifling 
a circumstance as this, to infer so stupendous a doctrine, as that 
there are three divine persons, though the Scripture declares 
that there is but one God ? Let me ask you, why our trans- 
lators have not rendered this word into English in the plural 
form? Why do we not read, in the English version, " The 
Lord our Gods is one Lord ?" Do you think that would be any 
improvement ? Surely it ought to be so rendered, if in the 
original so important a doctrine as that of the Trinity was 
meant to be involved in this mode of expression. But our 
translators were wise and grave men ; they knew the difference 
between a mere idiom of the Hebrew language, (which may be 
seized upon by a popular controversialist,) and the true, sub- 
stantial meaning of the Holy Scriptures. I will take the liberty 
of reading to you, on this subject, the testimony of the learned 
Dr. Geddes. He was indeed a Roman Catholic divine ; but as 
Catholics believe in the Trinity, as well as Protestants, I nope 
this circumstance will not be thought a fatal objection to his 
testimony. He says " Do the plural forms EloMm y and Elohi, 
denote a plurality of persons when applied to the one true God ? 
No: not any more than Adounim, and Adouni, denote a plural- 
ity of lords, Bouraim, and Bourai, a plurality of Creators, 
Penim and Peni, a plurality of faces, or Hiim,^ plurality of lives. 
It is truly strange that such a notion should ever have been enter- 
tained ; and indeed it is only a modern notion, of the same 
age with scholastic theology. The Christian Fathers of the 
Church, who were eager enough to discover in the Old 
Testament proofs of a Trinity, never dreamed of seeking one 
in Elohirn. The term Elohim is applied not only to the true 
God, but to false gods, and even to a single false god, whether 
male or female, such as Baal, JDagon, Ashtaroth, &c. It is 
applied to one Angel in Judges, xiii. v. 22, and to one man, 
Moses, Exodus iv. v. 16, and vik v. 1. Nay the golden calf is 
called by Aaron himself Elohi. The plural number then is no 
proof of a Trinity of Gods or persons ; and this is indeed 
allowed by the best commentators whether Catholic or Pro- 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



93 



testant." — (Critical Remarks, p. 8, as quoted in Dr. Carpenter's 
Unitarianism.) 

But I turn to my Hebrew Grammar, and there I find the 
whole matter explained in the simplest manner. " Words 
that express dominion, dignity, majesty, are commonly plural ; 
as Elohim, Gods, — Adounim, lords, — Bolim, husbands, masters ; 
— though, at the same time, they may have a verb, noun, or 
affix, singular" — {Wilson s Hebrew Grammar, p. 22L) 

It appears, then, to be a simple idiom of the Hebrew lan- 
guage, that words expressive of greatness, digniiy, and 
majesty, (as the name of God surely is), should be used in the 
plural number; and out of this simple idiom, my opponent 
would raise an argument for a plurality of persons in the 
Godhead. Now, it is not for me to say, that in arguing thus 
he has displayed gross ignorance of the commonest peculiarities 
of the Hebrew language. It would never do for me to talk so ; 
you would not endure it from me for a moment. But I am 
satisfied with saying, that according to the judgment of the best 
Hebrew scholars and grammarians, my reverend opponent has 
fallen into a considerable mistake on this subject.* 

I will next examine what has been said respecting the 
Unitarian argument from the 8th chap, and 6th v. of the 1st 
Epistle to the Corinthians. We are told, as far as f understand 
the statements which have been laid before me, that Jesus Christ 
is here denominated Lord; and that if I infer, because there is 
said to be " but one God, the Father," that therefore the Father 
alone is God, to the exclusion of every other person, I ought 
in the same manner to infer, because there is said to be u one 
Lord Jesus Christ," that therefore Jesus Christ alone is Lord, 
to the exclusion of every other person ; and thereby, it is said, I 
shall exclude Jehovah himself, even the Father, from being 
considered as Lord. Now, my brethren, all this is the veriest 
play upon words that ever was practised. The plain fact is, 
that the English word Lord, in the Scriptures, and also the 
corresponding word of the Greek in the New Testament, stand 
for two totally different Hebrew words ; one of which is mn y 
Jehovah, the proper and peculiar name of the true God; the 
other is *.l"Jtf Adouni, which means simply a lord, that is, 
a ruler, master, head, or chief, and is applied constantly to human 
beings. Tt is in this latter sense, that Jesus Christ is commonly 
denominated Lord in the Scriptures. I may mention a 

* I took into the pulpit, but forgot to read, this extract from Professor 
Lee, of Cambridge : — "1 am well aware that these and similar passages 
have been appealed to in support of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity ; 
but until it shall be made probable that the sacred writers did usually 
involve doctrines of this kind in the mere forms of words, I must be 
allowed to object to such methods of supporting an article of faith 
which stands m need of no such support, For similar usages in the 
Greek and Latin see Viger de idiotismis, Edit. 1813, p.p. 32, 46, &c» 
Clarke's Homer. Iliad E. line 778, note." 



94 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



circumstance, to prove the notoriety of these facts amongst 
learned men. In the Hebrew translation of the New Testa- 
ment, made for the use of Jews, by one of the greatest Hebrew 
scholars in Europe, under the direction of the British and 
Foreign Bible Society, this distinction is uniformly observed ; 
and the word Lord, as it occurs in the New Testament, is 
rendered back into one or the other of these very different 
Hebrew words, according as it applies to God or to Jesus 
Christ. I say therefore, that this argument is the veriest play 
upon words that ever was practised. In speaking of this 
passage of Scripture, however, my reverend opponent has 
referred me to the 55th page of his book, where he says that I 
shall find some critical arguments not suited to a popular 
audience. Now I am very ready to admit, that no man living 
knows the difference between a popular audience, and an 
audience of a different kind, better than my reverend opponent 
in this controversy. He has a remarkably fine discernment in 
this particular. Nevertheless, on referring to the 55th page of 
his book, I see nothing there which may not as well be brought 
before a popular audience, as many other things which he him- 
self has advanced. I will therefore state to you the substance 
of his observations. He says that Christ must here be spoken 
of as God, because he is declared to be " the only Lord," in 
opposition to the lords of the heathen, who, (my opponent 
further says), must be included amongst false gods. I see no 
proof of this whatever ; the Apostle rather seems to distinguish 
them, for he says there are " gods many, and lords many." 
Perhaps [ cannot tell precisely who are meant by these "lords 
many but that is no reason why I should submit to the dictate 
of my opponent, who cannot shew me that he knows any 
better than I do what it means. Probably the Apostle alludes 
to those many inferior, secondary persons, in the heathen 
mythology, who without being themselves worshipped as gods, 
acted as ministers or agents between the gods and mankind ; 
and the Apostle doubtless means to declare, that as " to us 
there is but one God, the Father," so there is but one Lord, or 
Mediator, between this true God and ourselves, even the man 
Christ Jesus. My reverend opponent further argues, in this 
55th page of his book, that Christ must here be denominated 
Lord in the highest sense, because, (as he affirms), the work of 
creation is here ascribed to Christ, since it is said that " by him 
are all things." I object to this conclusion, that the premises 
from which it is drawn are altogether fallacious. I contend that 
the words of the original do not signify that any thing was 
made, or created, by Jesus Christ, but only that Jesus Christ 
is the minister of God through whom we have received all the 
blessings of the gospel. I contend that the preposition, 
employed by the sacred writer, properly signifies instrumentality, 
or agency ; and therefore the passage, so far from implying that 
Christ is God, implies just the contrary, that he is the Minister 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



95 



or Agent of God. I think that out of the very numerous 
instances, in which this preposition is employed in the Scrip- 
tures, there is not more than one which presents the least 
difficulty in the way of this conclusion. Here then you perceive, 
my hrethren, that my reverend opponent and myself are again 
directly at issue on a matter of fact, on the meaning and force 
of a certain word employed in the Scriptures. He says that 
it bears a certain sense ; I say that it rather bears a contrary 
sense. How shall we decide this question ? He, of course, 
will not submit to my opinion, and I am certainly not 
disposed to submit to his. I am afraid that if T produce in 
my favour the authority of any mere modern scholars, he will 
immediately u throw them overboard." But it occurs to me, 
that if we could summon before us some of those great and 
learned men, who in the second and third centuries of the 
Christian Church employed the Greek language, almost as their 
native tongue, who wrote many and large books in this lan- 
guage, that their opinion, as to the proper force of a Greek 
preposition, may possibly be considered of more weight than 
mine, or than even the opinion of my reverend opponent. 
Now, I will produce such authority from the writings of 
Eusebius, a learned divine and historian of the Christian 
Church. Eusebius, in speaking of the Introduction to John's 
Gospel, has these remarks: — "And when he," (the Evangelist), 
"says in one place that the world, (v. 10,) and in another that 
all things, (v. 3,) were made through him, he declares the minis- 
tration," or agenc}', " of the Word to God. For when the 
Evangelist might have said ' All things were made by him,' 
(using quite another preposition wo), and again "The world 
was made by him," (wo), he has not said "by him?' but 
" through him" (^<z), in order that he might raise our con- 
ceptions to the underived power of the Father, as the original 
cause of all things." — (Eusebius de Eccles. Theol. lib. I. c. 20, 
as quoted by Mr. Yates.) 

A very similar passage is to be found in Origen. If such 
competent authorities, upon a mere question of language, are 
to be contemptuously cast aside whenever they tell against us, 
there is an end of all rational argument. 

I may as well here take notice of two or three attempts, 
which I understand my reverend opponent has made, to prove 
in a direct manner that there are three persons who are God, 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. First, he considers this to be 
proved by the fact, that the divine work of creation is attributed 
severally to each of those persons. Let us see how this argu- 
ment can be sustained. With so acute a logician as my 
reverend opponent, I may be allowed to ask, How is it proved 
that the Father, the first person of the Godhead, was engaged 
in the work of creation? This he seems willing to infer, 
though very grudgingly, from the passage in Malachi, " Have 



m 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



we not all one Father, hath not one God created us?" and he 
will doubtless say, as he does elsewhere, that I likewise shall 
admit this. He must know, however, that in the sense in which, 
he is now about to use the word Father, I shall admit no such 
thing. I will cheerfully admit, indeed, that the Father, 
meaning thereby one sole person, who alone is God, was the 
Author of creation; but this will at once preclude the Trini- 
tarian argument. In the unscriptural, theological sense of the 
term Father, as signifying one of three co-equal and co-eternal 
divine persons, I shall certainlv not admit that the Father was 
engaged in creation, because I do not believe that there is any 
such person. But again, how is it to be proved that the Son, 
the second person of the Godhead, had likewise a part in the 
work of creation ? This my opponent would prove by reference 
to the 3rd verse of the 1st. chap, of John, where it is said that 
" all things were made by him ;" and especially, by reference to 
the 16th v. of the 1st c» of the Epistle to the Colossians, where 
it is written, " by him were all things created." That is to 
say, he will refer to one passage which he knows that I, as a 
Unitarian, deny to have any relation to the Son, and to another 
passage which he knows that I deny to have any reference to 
proper creation ; and all this, before he has said one syllable in 
opposition to my reasons for adopting a different interpretation 
of those passages. My friends, you must see that this is not 
argument ; this is dexterously leaping over the very points in 
dispute. But again, how is it to be proved that the Holy Spirit, 
the third person in the Godhead, took part in creation? This, 
if I understand him rightly, my opponent would deduce from 
the 2nd verse of the 1st ch. of Genesis, where it is said, that 
" the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Now 
he must know that I, as a Unitarian, do not admit that the Holy 
Spirit is any distinct and third person of the Godhead. I do 
not believe that the Spirit of God is any more a distinct person 
from God himself, than the spirit of a man is a distinct person 
from the man himself; and my opponent has not yet offered a 
single reason in confutation of this Unitarian doctrine concern- 
ing the Holy Spirit. This therefore, again, is not argument; 
it is mere trifling. If you, my friends, only wish to hear the 
passages of Scripture read, to which Trinitarians commonly 
appeal in support of their faith, any of the respected clergy of 
Exeter could have done that for you ; and 1 believe they would 
have done it in a more candid and Christian temper. But when 
a gentleman travels from East to West, avowedly to engage in 
controversy with a Unitarian, we naturally expect him to do 
something more. 

There is another example of this mode of reasoning, which it 
may be convenient here to examine. In a former Lecture, I 
had to make some observations on the passage in the com- 
mencement of the 6th ch. of Isaiah, where it is thought to be 
related that the Prophet saw the divine glory of Christ in a 



LECTURE POURTH. 



97 



vision. My opponent now thinks, if I understand him, that 
he can prove the three persons to he included in that Jehovah 
who is there spoken of. First then, how is it shewn that the 
Father is here included ? This seems to have been inferred 
from the circumstance that the divine person here spoken of is 
related, (in the 8th verse,) to have sent another. " Whom shall 
I send, and who will go for us?" You are told that it was 
the Father, who said this " out of his prerogative office !" 
It must surely be meant, that to send is the Father's peculiar, 
exclusive prerogative ; otherwise it would clearly afford no 
evidence that the Father is here spoken of, any more than the 
Son, or the Holy Spirit. But if this be meant, I say that it is 
contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures ; for 1 read in the 
Scriptures, that the Son sent the Holy Spirit: (John chap. 15, 
v. 26,) u When the Comforter is come, zvhom I will send unto 
you from the Father;" and so in several other places. It is 
said, however, that I shall admit the Father to be here included. 
I shall admit no such thing, in the sense demanded. But again, 
how is it proved that the Son, the second person of the Godhead 
is included in this Jehovah? Why, this he says that I myself 
have already admitted! I, a Unitarian, have admitted, that 
Christ was the Jehovah whose glory Isaiah beheld in vision 
hundreds of years before Christ was born ! This would surely 
be a very liberal admission for me to make. My brethren, I 
scarcely need tell } r ou that I never did make any such admission* 
I must have been out of my senses ever to have entertained such, 
a thought. How could any man seriously believe, unless he 
takes me for a born idiot, that I could make such an 
admission, and continue a Unitarian for another moment ? It 
is not necessary for me to go over again the observations which 
I did make upon that passage of Isaiah, as referred to by John, 
in the 12th chap, of his Gospel. I said, in substance, that there 
are five or six distinct grounds of doubt, as to what the Evan- 
gelist means, when he says that the Prophet saw " his glory," 
and spake of him. I stated, that he might mean the glory of 
Jehovah, or he might mean the glory of Christ ; but t never 
admitted that he could mean both, so as to identify Christ with 
Jehovah. I will tell you, my friends, in what manner I think 
and hope that I should have treated my opponent, in a case of 
this kind. If I had found it reported to me, that my reverend 
opponent had made some admission, which I must have seen in 
a moment that as a Trinitarian he never could have made, I 
think that I should have said to myself instantly, " This is an 
evident mistake in the report." I hope that I should have dis- 
dained to take advantage of such a circumstance, and still more 
to have made use of it, again and again, in the course of my 
reply. My reverend opponent could not afford to let such a cir- 
cumstance escape him. But again, how is it to be proved tfeal 
the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, is likewise 
included in this Jehovah ? This he would prove by reference N 

K 



LECTURE FOURIH. 



the 28th chap, and 25th verse of the Acts of the Apostles 
" Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet, unto our 
fathers, saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall 
hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and 
not perceive." This is thought to be, and 1 believe it is, a 
quotation from this 6th chap, of Isaiah ; and therefore it is 
again inferred, that the Holy Spirit is that Jehovah whose glory 
the prophet beheld. But once more, is not my reverend oppo- 
nent aware, that no Unitarian admits the Holy Spirit to be 
a distinct and third person of the Godhead ? The Holy Spirit 
is the spirit, the invisible, secret, controlling energy of God 
himself ; and in this sense I believe it is very commonly under- 
stood even by Trinitarians. Is not this, again, leaping over the 
very points in dispute? 

Thus, then, concludes my opponents second attempt to 
prove a plurality of persons in the Godhead. You see that he 
cannot advance a single step, without calling upon me to admit 
that which he knows fall well I shall never admit. I would 
willingly grant him any thing which I could grant in conscience ; 
but when he expects me to allow the erroneousness of my own 
solemn religious convictions, I think you will agree with me, 
that this is asking rather too much. 

There is only one more topic on which I will trouble you 
for a minute. I find that my reverend opponent has declaimed, 
at some length, against what he is pleased to call the mere 
a priori arguments, which I advanced in former Lectures. He 
says, that he " throws them all overboard," as he does the 
human authorities which I may venture to produce. Now, my 
friends, this term a priori, is a learned phrase, and some may 
not know exactly what it means. I will tell you what I think 
it means. I understand that a priori arguments are arguments 
drawn from the antecedent possibility or impossibility, proba- 
bility or improbability, of the truth or falsity of a proposition, 
independently of the direct, positive evidence, that may be 
advanced either for or against it. For example, suppose any 
person to be accused of some serious crime in a court of justice ; 
of theft, for instance. The only evidence against him is a 
single expression or two in a letter which he is believed to have 
written, which expressions are so interpreted as to imply his 
guilt. The counsel for the defence, however, pleads a variety 
of circumstances, to shew the exceeding improbability of his 
guilt; as, for example, that the man is known to be very rich, 
and therefore could never have been under the slightest con- 
ceivable temptation to commit a paltry theft ; that he is known 
to have displayed a character of the strictest honesty and 
uprightness, throughout a long and honourable life; that, from 
other facts established in evidence, he must have travelled with 
incredible speed, in order to have been on the spot where the 
theft vvas committed, at the time when it was committed ; and a 
variety of other circumstances equall) strong. Now all this 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



99 



would be mere a priori argument: and you must imagine the 
counsel for the prosecution, rising and declaring that all this 
must be thrown overboard; that no such arguments could be 
allowed to have the slightest weight; that there tvere the two or 
three expressions in the letter, which could admit of no other 
interpretation than that which he chose to put upon them ; and 
therefore that the man must be condemned. It is very likely 
that you might admire the ability and pertinacity of this 
counsel, regarded merely as an advocate. But what would the 
grave Judge upon the Bench, and what would the honest, 
simple-minded Jury, say to all these powerful considerations? 
Would they be likely to throw them all contemptuously aside, 
under the name of a priori arguments? That is the only 
serious question for us to entertain. I certainly did make use 
of some arguments of this kind in my former Lectures. I 
contended for the great improbability of the doctrine of the 
proper deity of Christ, because it is no where stated in the 
Scriptures, as other less important doctrines are, but, if true, 
left entirely to be inferred ; because the sacred writers uniformly 
represent Christ as subject and subordinate to the Father, whom 
they declare to be the only true God ; because Jesus Christ con- 
tinually speaks, feels, and acts, according to Scripture history, 
as a creature, and not as the unchangeable God; because wa 
meet with no traces, in Scripture, of the stupendous and awful 
effects which must surely have been produced on the minds of 
the disciples of Christ, when they first discovered that he, with 
whom they had familiarly lived and conversed, was the Almighty 
Jehovah; because the doctrine of the proper deity of Christ 
practically introduces two Gods ? two distinct objects of supreme 
trust and worship ; and I contended for the extreme improbability 
of the popular doctrine upon various other similar grounds. 
But I repeatedly stated to you, at the time, that 1 did not put 
forward these general considerations, as being in themselves 
decisive against the deity of Christ, in opposition even to a 
single unequivocal testimony of Scripture. I told you, that I 
would not be misunderstood on this point, though I might be 
misrepresented. T knew that I should be misrepresented ; for 
I knew that there was no other way of evading the force of these 
arguments. I told you then, as I tell you now, that I do not 
build my Unitarian faith on any mere dictates of human reason, 
but on what I believe to be the true teaching of the Holy 
Scriptures. Nevertheless, whilst I say this, injustice to myself 
and to my own faith, I have no wish to conceal my real senti- 
ments on this subject. I protest against the doctrine, advanced 
or insinuated by my reverend opponent in speaking of this 
class of arguments. I protest against the notion, that con- 
siderations of human reason can have nothing whatever to do 
with articles of religious belief. As long as I revere and love 
true religion, I never will admit the justice of this assumption. 
It is a doctrine which would allow all manner of absurdities 



300 



LECTURE FOURTH. 



and contradictions to be imposed on the credulity of mankind 
under the abused name of religion. I protest against it, in the 
name of my own rights as a rational being ; in the name of 
Christianity, the most reasonable religion in the world ; in the 
name of Jesus Christ, who constantly appealed to the reason and 
understanding of his hearers; in the name of the God and 
Father of us all, who is the divine Author and Giver of human 
reason, and who will hereafter call us to account for the use 
lyhich we have made of this most precious faculty. 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



JOHN, ch. 10, v. 30. 

"I and my Father are one." 



I shall reserve the observations which I may have to make 
on these words, till the close of the Lecture. In general, indeed, 
when we preach Sermons, we commence with remarks upon 
our text; but on the present occasion I am not about to preach 
a Sermon to you, (I wish I was,) and I have my reasons for 
deferring" my observations on this particular passage. 

In my last Lecture, as many of you will remember, after 
entering at large on the defence of the Unitarian interpretation 
of the Proem of John's Gospel, I examined nine or ten distinct 
arguments, or objections, urged by my reverend opponent in his 
recent discourses. I shall now pursue that branch of the 
subject. And you will allow me to take this opportunity of 
saying, that as I have now had time to peruse more carefully the 
reports which have been made to me of those discourses, 1 am 
astonished at the numerous and extraordinary misapprehensions 
of what I did say and mean in my former Lectures ; and there- 
fore I would entreat your candid and patient hearing, whilst I 
now endeavour to set myself right, and to vindicate the 
arguments and assertions which I really did advance. 

The next argument in order, then, which 1 shall examine, 
relates to the passage in the 1st Epistle of John, ch. 5 v. 20 : — ■' 
" And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us 
an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we 
are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is 
the true God and eternal life." My reverend opponent would 
conclude from this passage, as many others have done before 
him, that Jesus Christ is denominated " the true God ;" but he 
says that the grammatical principle, on which he would build 
such a conclusion, is not that the pronoun "this" must refer 



102 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



to the last antecedent, "as some who argue but very incorrectly 
would assume." I am not sure, whether he means this hint for 
me, or for some of his fellow labourers in the Trinitarian cause, 
whom he has several times gently rebuked for their illogical 
methods of reasoning. I do not remember that I formerly 
considered this passage as a distinct argument for the deity of 
Christ. I merely referred to it in one place for illustration; 
and I did not then affirm, that it is a sound, invariable rule of 
grammatical construction, that a demonstrative pronoun must 
refer to the last antecedent. I merely said, that this was the 
principle on which Trinitarians themselves commonly argue, 
when they appeal to this text for proof of the deity of Christ; 
and I find, upon investigation, that I was perfectly correct in 
making .that assertion. But my reverend opponent tells you 
that this is not right; he says "the grammatical principle is, 
that the pronoun " this" refers to the prominent antecedent, the 
prominent person discoursed of in the preceding passage." 
Now 1 entreat you to read the passage attentively, and to say 
whether this favourite rule of my opponent xloes not exceedingly 
weaken, even if it does not completely destroy, the Trinitarian 
argument from this passage. Weaken it, it certainly must; 
because it shifts the ground of the argument from a matter of 
plain fact, to a matter of mere opinion or feeling. What is the 
last antecedent in a sentence, is a matter of fact, which is 
, determined in a moment, by simply looking at the passage: — 
the last antecedent in this place, for instance, is evidently " his 
Son Jesus Christ," But what is the prominent antecedent in a 
sentence, where there are confessedly more than one, is a matter 
of opinion, on which any two persons may differ. To say the 
least of it, therefore, this new principle of my reverend opponent 
greatly weakens the Trinitarian argument from this passage. 
But 1 think it does more than this ; I think it completely 
destroys the argument. It is, in fact, the very principle on 
which Unitarians have usually replied to the Trinitarian 
argument from this text. I beseech you to read the whole 
verse, and then to judge, whether the prominent antecedent, the 
prominent person discoursed of, be not 4< Him that is true," 
who is twice mentioned in the verse, and who cannot be Jesus 
Christ, because Jesus Christ is here expressly declared to be 
" his Son;" and I surely may be allowed so far to make use of 
my reason, as to affirm that no being or person can be his own 
Son. I take it to be certain, if we may trust to the sacred 
writers to explain their own meaning, that the person here 
referred to as " the true God," is the Father, who is elsewhere 
declared, in the writings of the same Evangelist, to be the 
" onlv true God," (John, ch. 17 T v - 3.) The passage in the 
Gospel is, indeed, very similar to, and throws light upon, the 
passage in the Epistle. In the one place our Saviour himself, 
and in the other his Apostle, is speaking of our having received 
ffce knowledge, a right understanding, of the Father, " the 



LECTURE FIFTH, 



103 



only true God," " Him that is true," through his Son Jesus 
Christ, whom he hath sent. But my reverend opponent tells 
you, that Jesus Christ must be intended here, because it is said, 
"This is the true God and eternal life" which latter phrase, 
he affirms, is a Scriptural title of Jesus Christ. This 1 doubt 
exceedingly; indeed, I do not believe that it is so. I believe 
that this expression, " eternal life," does not mean the person 
of the Father, nor the person of the Son, nor any other person ; 
but it means, the right knowledge and understanding of the 
Father, communicated through the Son. It is very plain thai 
this is the meaning of it in the passage of the Gospel, already 
alluded to, " This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the 
only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Here 
you perceive that it is not the Father, nor the Son, but it is our 
knowledge of the Father through the Son, which is called 
" eternal life." I would direct your attention also to the 11th 
v. of this same 5th ch. of the 1st Epistle of John, only a few 
verses before the passage under consideration: — " This is the 
record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in" 
or by " his Son." Here likewise, it is plain that " eternal life" 
does not mean either the Father or the Son, but some blessings 
which we have received of the Father through the Son. We 
have, then, two unambiguous instances, in the very same 
Evangelist, in which the expression bears this meaning. Let us 
next turn to the beginning of this same Epistle, (the 1st and 2d 
vs. of the 1st ch.) : — " That which was from the beginning, 
which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which 
we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word 
of life." I stated to you, in a former Lecture, and I now repeat 
it, that this verse is not correctly translated in our common 
version. Where we read "of the Word of Life," the original 
is not a simple instance of the genitive or possessive case, but a 
distinct preposition is employed, which means "concerning," or 
"respecting;" and the proper translation would be, "That 
which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, 
respecting the word of life." I also proved to you, by reference 
to the 16th v. of the 2nd ch. of the Epistle to the Philippians, 
that this expression, " the word of life," does not mean the 
person, but the doctrine, of Jesus Christ. I am well satisfied 
that the same thing is meant by the " eternal life" mentioned in 
the second verse of this 1st Epistle of John : — "For the life was 
manifested, and we have seen it (there is nothing in the original 
answering to the word " it, )7 nor is there any occasion to insert it 
in the translation ; it only serves to confuse and mislead the 
reader; the literal rendering of the passage would be,) "And 
the life has been manifested, and we have seen, and do testify, 
and announce unto you that eternal life which was with the 
Father, and has been manifested unto us." Here therefore 
again, this expression, "eternal life," may evidently bear the 
same meaning, which we have seen that it certainly does bear 



104 



lecture fifth. 



in two other passages of the same Evangelist. Why, then, 
should we doubt, that it also has the same meaning in the text 
which is now under discussion. Doubtless, the Apostle means 
by " the true God," " him that is true," the Father, the only 
true God, the prominent antecedent, the prominent person 
discoursed of in the foregoing sentence ; and by " eternal life," 
he means, neither the Father nor the Son, hut the same thing 
as he means by the same expression elsewhere, and which 
indeed he is also treating of in the foregoing sentence, the right 
understanding and knowledge of the true God, through his Son 
Jesus Christ. This is the plain, common-sense interpretation 
of the passage ; let controversialists twist and torture it as they 
may. 

In the next place, I find my reverend opponent deducing 
an argument for a plurality of persons in the Godhead, 
from the use of plural verbs and pronouns in reference to God* 
You know that there are three or four instances of this kind in 
the Old Testament ; the most remarkable instance is in the 1st 
chap, of Genesis, where God is represented as saying, " Let us 
make man in our image, after our likeness." Because the 
plural pronouns, us and our, are here said to have been employed 
by God, my opponent would infer that there must be a plurality 
of divine persons. I endeavoured to shew you, in the last 
Lecture, how little force there is in the argument drawn from 
the plural form of the word Elohim, which is translated " God" 
in the Scriptures. T think there is, if possible, still less force 
in the present argument. Suppose, for a moment, that we 
could give no reasonable account of this peculiarity of language. 
Do you think, judging soberly and seriously on the subject, that 
it is an argument on which we should be justified in building 
such a stupendous doctrine, as that there are three persons to 
be equally honoured and worshipped as God? Is it a kind of 
argument from which we could safely infer such a doctrine? 
Undoubtedly we think and feel very differently in these cases ; 
but speaking as a Unitarian, I say most seriously, that if a 
feather were floating before my eyes in the air, and I could 
not tell where it came from, and if I were to infer that it came 
from France, merely because there are feathers in France, when 
there are so many other places from which it might come, it 
seems to me that I should not in this case reason more loosely, 
than Trinitarians do in deriving the doctrine of three divine 
persons from this peculiarity of the Hebrew Scriptures. How- 
ever, T am of opinion that we can give some reasonable account 
of this mode of expression. It appears to have been, from the 
most ancient times, a dignified, royal, majestic method of speak- 
ing. Kings were accustomed to speak in this manner, saying 
" we," and " us," in the plural number, though but one indi- 
vidual person. We may therefore easily suppose, that this mode 
of expression was employed by the sacred historian as being 
suitable to the great dignity and majesty of God. But then 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



105 



you arti told by my reverend opponent, that this custom of 
kings, in speaking of themselves individually in the plural 
number, was not in use so early as the time of Moses. How 
does he know that ? It is a considerable thing, you will observe, 
for any man to assert positively that a certain custom did not 
exist at a certian period of the world. It is not so easy to 
prove a direct negative. My opponent, however, thinks it is 
easily proved, by the circumstance that Nebuchadnezzar, in the 
Book of Daniel, continually speaks in the singular number ; 
from this he infers at once, that the custom of kings speaking 
in the plural was not known up to the time of the prophet 
Daniel. This, at all events, is a very quick way of arriving at 
an important conclusion : some of us are obliged to travel more 
slowly. How does it follow with such certainty, that because 
an Assyrian king employed the singular, that therefore no 
other kings, Jewish or Heathen, had ever employed the plural 
form of expression, on especial and solemn occasions? I 
think, moreover, that this assertion of my reverend opponent 
may be shewn to be erroneous, from the testimony of the 
Scriptures themselves. I refer you to the 1st. Book of Kings, 
(chap. 12, v. 9), which, you know, records events long preced- 
ing the times of the prophet Daniel. It appears to me, that 
king- Rehoboam there makes use of the plural pronoun. We 
read, (v. 3), that ail the congregation of Israel came and spoke 
unto Rehoboam, saying, " Thy father made our yoke grievous ; 
now, therefore, make thou the grevious service of thy father 
lighter, and we will serve thee," Rehoboam then consults with 
the old men and the young men about him, and at length says, 
" What counsel give ye, that we may answer this people. I 
certainly understand him to mean himself, individually, in his 
character of king. He alone had bepn petitioned by the con- 
gregation of Israel ; he alone was expected to give, or could 
give, the answer. There is another instance of the same kind, 
in the book of Ezra 9 (chap. 4, v. 18), we read, in the 8th and 
11th verses, that Rheum the Chancellor, and Shimshai the 
Scribe, and others their companions/' had written a letter of 
complaint against the Jews to king Artaxerxes. The leter 
was addressed to the king individually, in his kingly character, 
and we read, in the 17th and 18th verses, that the king returned 
an answer, which began in these words, 6i The letter 
which ye sent unto us hath been plainly read before 
me." It is clear from these examples, that the assertions 
of my reverend opponent, which he makes with so much confi- 
dence, and which I fear others rely on with equal confidence, 
are not always to be trusted without examination. It is clear, I 
think, that kings were accustomed to use this mode of expression 
before the time of Daniel, and for any thing which can be shewn to 
the contrary, before the time of Moses. " Yes, but who can sup- 
pose," exclaims my reverend opponent, " that God would ever 
borrow modes of expression from his own creatures, in order to 



106 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



set forth his divine power and majesty? Who can suppose 
that the dignity of God could be shewn by imitating the language 
of earthly kings ?" Now, my brethren, do let me entreat you to 
consider how perfectly childish all this declamation is. Is not 
every thing which is said by God, or relating to God, in the 
Scriptures, necessarily borrowed from the ways and customs of 
his creatures ? Is there any other method, by which a single 
idea can be conveyed to our minds concerning God ? When 
God is represented as speaking at all, whether in the singular 
or plural, when God is said to hear, to see, to stretch forth his 
arm, to make the clouds his chariot, to walk upon the wings of 
the wind ; in short, whenever any thing is represented as being 
said or done by God, is it not all of necessity borrowed from the 
language and ways of his earthly creatures ? There is abso- 
lutely no other means, by which the will and purposes of God 
can be made known to us. This objection, therefore, is <|uite 
preposterous. 

But I have another observation to make on this sub- 
ject. You say that the use of plural pronouns, in reference 
to God, proves a plurality of persons in the Godhead. How so ? 
Why does it not prove at once a plurality of Gods? This 
would surely be the legitimate inference, if any inference of 
the kind must be drawn. But you say, No ; I must not draw 
this inference ; I must only infer that, in some mysterious sense, 
not to be explained or understood, there is a plurality of persons 
in the one true God. The use of a plural pronoun then, it 
would seem, proves a plurality of divine persons ? Very well ; 
let it be so, for the sake of argument. But if I admit this 
principle, I shall claim the right to avail myself of it, as well as 
the Trinitarian. Now, where you can produce three or four 
instances in which God speaks in the plural form, I can produce 
three or four thousand in which he speaks in the singular form ; 
and from this I infer, on the same principle, not merely that 
there is but one God, but that God is a single person; and 
remember, that my argument for the strict personal unity of 
God, is thus rendered three or four thousand times stronger 
than your similar argument for a plurality of divine persons. 
But here you again exclaim, No ; I must not draw any such 
inference from the use of singular pronouns, as you take the 
liberty of drawing from the use of plural pronouns. That is to 
say, you claim the special and exclusive privilege of employing 
the most trifling arguments. I cheerfully yield it to you. 1 
neither demand nor desire such a privilege. 

The next passage which I have to examine, is in the 5th 
chap, and 23rd verse of the Gospel according to John. " That 
all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father. 
He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which 
hath sent him." This indeed is a serious argument; and it is 
refreshing to meet with it, after so much which I can regard no 
otherwise than as trifling with the Scriptures and the subject. 
We must read the preceding verse: — " For the Father judgeth. 



"LECTURE FIFTH. 



107 



no man, but bath committed all judgment unto the Son ; that all 
men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father." 
The sense immediately suggested to my mind on reading this 
passage, is, that all men should honour Christ, as one to whom 
God has " committed" great power and authority, as the ap- 
pointed minister, agent, and representative of God, in some 
great moral work. Any allusion to the supposed natural claims • 
of Jesus to be revered and worshipped as God, or indeed any 
allusion to the subject of religious worship at all, would seem to 
be entirely foreign from the main import and object of the pas- 
sage. Whatever may be the kind of " honour" intended, men 
are taught to " honour the Son even as they honour the 
Father/' — not because the Son is himself uncreated God, equal 
in all respects to the Father, — but for a reason which would 
rather seem to exclude the idea of any such perfect equality be- 
tween the two persons ; namely, that the Father has 
44 committed," entrusted, given over, and assigned to the Son, a 
certain degree of moral authority. So that if interpreters would 
be guided by the plain tendency of the passage, considered alto- 
gether, they would see that nothing could be less relevant to the 
main subject in this place, than any mention of the essential 
natural equality of Christ with the Father. But it is too much 
the practice with Christians of the orthodox persuasion, to 
despise these general considerations, however clear and 
powerful, if they can avail themselves of any minute 
argument from particular words and phrases. I must 
therefore endeavour to shew, that when the language 
of the passage is fairly examined, they have no such argument 
in the present case. " That all men should honour the Son even 
as they honour the Father.' 5 I believe there is not a single 
passage of Scripture in which the word, (xxQvs,) here rendered 
" even as", is used to express a perfect likeness, or perfect 
equality, between the two objects or actions which it serves to 
compare. In some cases, it implies a certain kind and degree 
of similarity* uear or distant, literal or figurative, real or 
imaginary, according to the particular nature of the subjects 
compared ; in other cases, it appears to be employed to shew, that 
the latter of the two subjects bears to the former the relation of a 
cause, a reason, or an occasion , but never, I apprehend, to shew 
that the two are to be considered in ail respects equal and alike. 
We read for instance that " as, (kx9c<js,) Jonah was a sign unto 
the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this gene- 
ration — and again, " as, (y.xQus,) it was in the days of 
Noah, so shall it he also in the days of the Son of man;" 
and ag-ain, in the third chapter of this same GospeJ," 
as, {y.x9cu^) Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilder- 
ness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.'' 
In ev?ry one of these instances, it is plain that nothing more 
than some degree of similarity can be intended ; for though 
the days of Noah may have been in some respects like the days 



108 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



of the Son of man, and also the lifting* up of the brazen serpent 
may be imagined to be something like the lifting up of our 
Saviour on the cross, — near enough for an illustration, — yet no 
one will maintain that the similitude was perfect. The just 
inference, therefore, from the expression now under considera- 
tion, should seem to be, that we are to pay honours to Christ, 
not necessarily the same as those which we pay to God, but only 
in some way,andin some degree, resemblingthem ; the particular 
way and degree must be determined by our own judgments, 
under the guidance of reason and the general principles of our 
faith. 

This, I say, would be the just inference, so far as we have 
hitherto examined the phraseology in question. But perhaps, in 
order to make this evident to the mind of a Trinitarian, we 
must turn to other passages, in which the same rigid interpreta- 
tion for which he contends in this instance, would on his own 
principles lead to the greatest absurdity. In the seventeenth 
chapter of this Gospel, our Saviour says, addressing the Father 
concerning the Apostles,— " Thou hast loved them as (x.xQojs) 9 
thou hast loved me." The Trinitarian will not be prepared to 
infer from this, that the love and favour which God shewed to 
the Apostles were in all respects equal to that which God 
bestowed on Christ, his chosen and well-beloved Son : — it would 
be inconsistent with the Scriptures to believe this, and 
peculiarly inconsistent with the doctrine of the Trinitarian, who 
considers Christ to be the divine and eternal Son of God. A 
yet stronger passage, however, occurs in the eleventh verse of 
the same chapter, where Jesus prays to God for his disciples in 
these words, — "that they may be one as, (xccQas) we are one." 
What Trinitarian will or can admit, that the oneness between 
Christ and his disciples is in all respects equal and identical 
with the oneness between God and Christ? He contends, 
indeed, that they are not even similar, not of the same kind, the 
one being a union of nature and essence, the other a moral union 
only. In this I think he is mistaken. The union of Christ 
with the Father is in some respects similar to that of Christ and 
the Father with all pious believers : being in both cases a moral 
and spiritual, not a natural union. But even Unitarians do not 
suppose that the one is altogether equal to the other ; and it is 
plain that Trinitarians can never draw such an inference, 
without the grossest violation of their own principles. If the 
language of Scripture, therefore, in the controverted passage 
before us, is to be interpreted according to its manifest significa- 
tion in other passages, we must understand, that men are to pay 
honours to Christ in some way or other resembling those which 
they pay to God, but not necessarily equal or precisely like to 
them. 

Sometimes, however, as I have remarked, the word under 
explanation appears to be used to shew that one of the two sub- 
jects mentioned bears to the other the relation of a cause, a rea- 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



103 



son, or an occasion. The words of Christ in speaking of him- 
self may be taken as an example of this : — ''Father, glorify thy 
Son, that thy Son a^o may glorify thee ; as, (xa&o*,) thou hast 
given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life 
to as many as thou hast given him." This seems clearly to 
mean, that since God had bestowed such authority on Jesus, as 
to make him the author of eternal life to all men, therefore it 
was proper that God should now in an especial manner glorify 
his Son. In the Epistle to the Romans, also, we read concern- 
ing the Gentiles, that " even as, Ota^W,) they did not like to 
retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a repro- 
bate mind." This seems clearly to mean, that since the Gentiles 
had forsaken the knowledge of the true God, because of their 
idolatrous wanderings from him, God had given them over to a 
reprobate mind. The just inference, then, from this class of pas- 
sages, is, that when our Saviour savs, " all men should honour 
the Son, even as they honour the Father," he means that since 
all men profess to honour the Father, because they are bound to 
honour the Father, therefore should they honour the Son, unto 
whom the Father hath committed all judgment. But the very 
form and grounds of the precept shew, that we are to honour 
Christ, not as himself God, but as the messenger whom God 
hath sent. 

In the next place, I find that my reverend opponent has 
carried your attention to the 23 ch. and 42 v. of the Gospel of 
Luke, as containing another proof of the deity of Christ. They 
are the words of the penitent thief on the cross, <4 Remember 
me when thou comest into thy kingdom." 1 had referred, in a 
former Lecture, to the 12th ch. and 31st v. of this Gospel, to 
shew that the Father is God, " Seek ye the kingdom of God ; it 
is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." My 
reverend opponent says, that this precept was fulfilled by the 
penitent thief, when he besought Christ to remember him mhis 
kingdom; therefore the kingdom of Christ is the kingdom of 
God, and therefore Christ is God! Now, my brethren, do you 
see the force of this argument? Do you recognise the sound- 
ness of this method of reasoning ; that because the dispensation 
of the gospel, or the state of future blessedness to which it may 
lead, is called sometimes the kingdom of Christ, and sometimes 
the kingdom of God, that therefore Christ is God ? May it not 
be denominated the kingdom of God, because it originated en- 
tirely with God, because it is the effect of his divine wisdom, 
power and goodness? and may it not also be called the kingdom 
of Christ, because Christ is the spiritual king whom God hath 
raised up, and anointed with the holy spirit and with power, to 
reign as his vicegerent in this kingdom of grace? This is one 
of those arguments, of which I told you, in the commencement, 
that I should only examine one or two of a kind, and leave 
others of the same kind to share the fate of their fellows. If 
you can perceive any conclusiveness, any weight whatever, in 

L 



110 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



such arguments, your understandings and mine must be differ- 
ently constituted. To me it would appear just as reasonable, 
to argue that, because the divine law under which the Jews 
lived is sometimes called the law of Moses, and sometimes the 
law of God, that therefore Moses is God. But I forget, that I 
must not dare to illustrate the feebleness of my opponent's argu- 
ments in this way, lest I should be rebuked for impiety. In my 
former Lectures, I ventured to illustrate the danger of that 
mode of reasoning in which the deity of Christ is often attempted 
to be proved, by shewing that the same mode of reasoning 
would equally prove the deity of Moses. What says my 
reverend opponent to this ? Instead of endeavouring to convince 
you that those observations of mine were unsound, he starts ! 
and affects to shudder at the man who would presume to com- 
pare Moses ivith Christ. My brethren, he knows full well that 
I never had a thought of comparing Moses with Christ. He 
knows that my views of the character, office, and dignity of 
Christ, are immeasurably above all that was ever conceived of 
as belonging to Moses. All which I did, was to compare his 
argument for the deity of Christ with a perfectly similar argu- 
ment, which any man might urge for the deity of Moses. If, 
for merely doing this, you charge me with irreverence, I say that 
T indignantly repel the charge. I will not retort it upon you, 
but I repel it from myself. And yet if there were any irre- 
verence manifested in the case, the blame of it would rest with 
vou, who bring forward such arguments, not with me who am 
compelled, either to illustrate their weakness in this manner, or 
to seem to acknowledge their force. But this, my brethren, is 
one of the arts of controversy. Whenever you meet with an ob- 
jection or an argument which you know not how to answer, in- 
stead of answering it, represent your opponent as a man who is 
guilty of something very shameful in making use of such an 
argument. This, I say, is one of the arts of controversy. 

In the next place, I find my reverend opponent employing 
much declamation against the few remarks which I offered on 
the nature of inferential reasoning. He is very angry, that I 
should object to his making use of inferential reasoning. 
Now, I throw myself on your recollection, whether I was so 
absurd as to condemn all use of this kind of reasoning on moral 
subjects? I am chargeable with no such folly. I know that 
we cannot advance far in the investigation of any moral or 
religious subject, without having recourse in some measure to 
inferential reasoning. But I only endeavoured to point out to 
you the real nature of such evidence; and especially to call 
your attention to the fact, that this doctrine of the deity of 
Christ is supported entirely by such evidence, and not, as all 
the unquestionable doctrines of the gospel are, by tho plain and 
repeated declarations of the sacred writers. I merely pointed 
out to you the danger which lurks in the incautious employment 
of such a method of reasoning. So long as we abide by the 



LECTURE FIFTH'. 



Ill 



express statements of the inspired teachers, we are safe ; we 
rely on their divine authority ; but when we betake ourselves to 
numerous and complicated inferences, this is altogether an 
exercise of our own fallible judgment, and it may easily mislead 
us. This was all that I said. What is the answer of my 
opponent ? He cannot shew that my observations were 
groundless, or inapplicable ; but he cries out against the man 
who could dare, forsooth, to find fault with him for making use 
of inferential reasoning ; and he says that, in doing so, I at the 
same time find fault with my Saviour Jesus Christ, for he 
employed inferential reasoning with the Sadducees on the 
subject of the resurrection. He says, moreover, that this is not 
the only instance, in which the Unitarian by his method of 
arguing brings accusations against the Lord Jesus Christ. 
Now, my brethren, I ask you whether this is a right and fair 
way of conducting a religious discussion? But this is another 
of the arts of controversy. When you cannot, by fair means, 
remove the objections of your opponent, make no scruple of 
attributing to him conduct which you know to be most 
repugnant to every solemn feeling of his soul. This is another 
of the arts of controversy. What would some men do without 
them? 

We are next referred to the 11th and 12th vs. of the 1st 
chap, of the Epistle to the Galatians, to prove that Christ is 
God : — "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was 
preached of me is not after man, For I neither received it of 
man, neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus 
Christ." The Apostle here declares that the doctrine of the 
gospel is not after man, that he himself had not received it of 
man, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. From this, my 
reverend opponent would infer, " that Christ is more than man." 
Nay, 1 object to that, as not being the strictly logical inference. 
If you infer any thing, you must infer, not merely that Christ 
was something more than man, but that Christ was not a man 
at all; for the Apostle expressly declares that he had not 
received the gospel of man, though he confesses that he had 
received it by the revelation of Jesus Christ. If you will have 
recourse to these inferences, I cannot allow you to infer just as 
much, or just as little, as may happen to suit your purpose: I 
shall insist on your inferring that which is strictly inferable 
from the premises. The strict inference here is, that Jesus 
Christ was not a man at all; which is rather more, I presume, 
than you are prepared to contend for. The passage, therefore, 
when it is so dealt with, either proves nothing, or it proves too 
much. But is it not, my Christian friends, the plain, common- 
sense meaning of this passage, simply that the gospel is not of 
human invention, not a mere tradition of men, but came 
immediately from God by revelation through Jesus Christ; that 
it is divine in its origin, and divine in its character? Is not 
this, I say, the plain common-sense meaning of the passage ? It 

l 2 



112 



LECTURE FIFTH, 



is pitiful, to see such a sentiment as this forced out of its 
connexion, where it has a beautiful moral importance, to be 
dragged into the arena of controversy. 

I next find my reverend opponent contending that Christ is 
God, on the ground that he claimed to perform miracles by his 
own natural, divine power. For proof of this, we are referred 
to the instance of the blind men, (Matthew ch. 9. v. 28), where 
" Jesus saith unto them, believe ye that I am able to do this ? 
they said unto him, Yea, Lord ; then touched he their eyes, 
saying, according to your faith be it unto you likewise to the 
instance of the leper, (Matthew ch. 8, v. 2), " And behold, there 
came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, 
thou canst make me clean ; and Jesus put forth his hand and 
touched him, saying, I will, be thou clean ; and immediately 
his leprosy was cleansed." Because in these instances our 
Saviour declares himself able to perform these miracles, without 
at the moment ascribing the power by which he wrought them 
to his God and Father, my reverend opponent would infer that 
Jesus professed to work miracles by his own Almighty Power. 
What ! will you lay this to his charge, after he himself has 
solemnly told you, that it was the Father who dwelt in him and 
did all the works ? Will you sooner rely on your own infer- 
ences, than on his solemn word and declaration ? Is this treat- 
ing him respectfully, not to say reverently? What occasion 
was there for him repeatedly to inform such a people as the 
Jews, that he, a human being, though a prophet of God, did not 
perform miracles by his own power? They were in no danger 
of falling into such a strange mistake. Observe the inference 
which they drew, when Jesus performed in their presence even 
a greater miracle than these, (Matthew ch. 9. v. 8.) " When 
the multitude saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God who had 
given such power unto men/' Such was their inference, for 
they had no Trinitarian prejudices to blind their understand- 
ings; and it was the proper inference. Therefore there was 
no need of our Lord's continually disclaiming that which none 
of his hearers would think of ascribing to him. But my 
reverend opponent imagines he can prove more than this. He 
can prove, not only that Christ wrought miracles by his own 
divine power, but that all the three persons of the Godhead were 
engaged in the performance of these miracles. How can this 
be shown ? Because our Lord says in one place, (Matthew 
ch. 12. v. 28), " I cast out devils by the spirit of God." Here 
my reverend opponent thinks we have mention of the three per- 
sons of the Godhead, as the authors of the miracles of Jesus. 
" 1," that is, Christ, God the Son, the second person of the 
Trinity, " cast out demons by the Spirit," that is, the Holy 
Ghost, the third person, <£ of God," that is, the Father, the 
first person ; for the name " God," you must have observed, 
means any one of the three persons, this, that, or the other, just 
as it may suit a Trinitarian's purpose for the moment. Now I 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



113 



venture to ask you again, my brethren, whether you do really 
feel and acknowledge the force of such an argument as this ?— 
I entreat you to lay aside, as much as possible, all your pre- 
judices and foregone conclusions, and to imagine yourselves in 
the circumstances of those who witnessed the miracles of Jesus 
Christ. Imagine that some wise and holy person should make 
his appearance in this age, delivering the most pure and sub- 
lime doctrine, and daily performing the mightiest miracles. 
Suppose you were brought into the presence of this great per- 
son, to hear his teaching and to behold his works ; and suppose 
the very first deed which you saw him perform was to give 
sight to the blind, and the very first words you heard him utter 
were these, " I by the spirit of God perform this miracle." Do 
you think you should immediately infer, that this person him- 
self was God ? and not only so, but that there were two other 
divine persons equally engaged in the working of the miracle ? 
Would you not rather infer, that the person whom you saw and 
heard was a meek and humble servant of God, since he piously 
ascribed all his might and wisdom to the Supreme Being ? — 
Truly, such Trinitarian arguments as these are not merely 
futile ; they are something worse, which I must not venture to 
describe. 

We are in the next place directed to the 3d chap, and Uth 
verse of the 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians. "Now God him- 
self and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our 
way unto you." Here again my reverend opponent thinks 
that he discovers the three persons of the Godhead. In order 
to make this out, he understands that by " God" is here meant 
the Holy Spirit. Just now, you will remember, it meant the 
Father ; but as I then told you, it means this, that, or the 
other, as may suit the Trinitarian's purpose for the moment. I 
pause to ask you if it be likely, that the sense of the most im- 
portant term in religion, even the name of God himself, would 
be thus left to be determined in every separate passage of 
Scripture by the fallible judgment of a heated disputant ? Is 
this at all probable ? However, there is no reason to doubt, 
that " God and our Father" here mean the same person. 
Neither is there any evidence that this is a prayer addressed to 
three persons, or even to two persons, or to any one but the 
Father, ft is a devout wish, that God, even the Father, and 
Jesus Christ, might so direct the way of the Apostle as to enable 
him to visit the Thessalonians. You may consider it as a 
prayer, if you will ; but you have no evidence that, as a prayer, 
it was addressed to Christ, as well as to the Father, although 
it relates to the favour and assistance both of God himself and 
of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, we know, was in that age 
miraculously engaged in directing the spiritual affairs of his 
disciples. The Apostle himself tells us. that " he bowed his 
knee to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." 



114 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



Our attention is next called to the 3d chap, and 18th verse 
of the 2nd Epistle of Peter. " But grow in grace, and in the 
knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be 
glory both now and for ever, Amen." This is a doxology, or an 
ascription of praise and glory, supposed to be ascribed to our 
Saviour. If it were certain that we have here the correct read- 
ing, I should have no hesitation in saying that it was a very 
strong passage in the Trinitarian's favour. It does seem like an 
ascription of the honors of deity to Christ, and therefore it 
would present a considerable difficulty ; but still, even in that 
case, I should feel bound as a Unitarian to regard it merely in 
the light of a difficulty ; for I see not why I should expect, 
more than a Christian of any other denomination, to meet with 
no difficulties whatever in the Scriptures. But f must observe 
that it is very doubtful whether our common reading of this 
passage be correct. Some good authorities, and amongst 
them both the Syriac versions, which are considered the 
most ancient and valuable in the world, after the words 
" Jesus Christ" read these additional words, " and of God the 
Father." This, of course, if it, be the correct reading, which 
is very probable, entirely destroys the argument from this place 
for the deity of Christ. This, at all events, is sufficient to 
render the argument from this passage exceedingly doubtful. 
It is one of those passages which ought, in fairness, to be left 
out of consideration in this controversy. And here I must 
take the liberty of saying, that I do not exactly understand the 
principle by which some Trinitarian advocates appear to be 
governed in these cases. They bring forward passages of 
Scripture in which they know the reading to be very doubtful, 
where the common reading has escaped the condemnation of 
the most able critics only as it were by an hair's breadth ; and 
yet they argue from these passages before a popular audience, 
as though the common reading were indisputably right. I pre- 
sume not to find fault with them for doing so. I only say that 
I do not exactly understand the principle by which they are 
governed. 

I am now brought to the examination of another passage, 
which my reverend opponent produced before; but which, he 
says, I left altogether unnoticed because I knew it was impos- 
sible for me to answer it. Such is the inference which he is 
always ready to draw. The passage is found in the 5th chap, 
of John's Gospel, extending from the 17th to the 21st verses 
inclusive. Christ had performed a miracle on the Sabbath-day. 
The Jews in their malignity immediately accused him of 
irreverence and impiety " Therefore did the Jews persecute 
Jesus, (v. 16), and sought to slay him, because he had done 
these things on the Sabbath-day." But Jesus answered them,, 
(v. 17) " My Father worketh hitherto and I work." There are 
two senses, I conceive, in which these words of our Saviour 
may be understood ; though in the end they both amount to 



LECTURE FIFTH, 



115 



the same general import. His meaning may be this : " My 
heavenly Father doth not rest from doing works of mercy and 
beneficence on the Sabbath-day. God continues his kind provi- 
dence over men; He provides for their bodily and spiritual 
wants, on the Sabbath as on all other days. Therefore I, who 
am the chosen Son and messenger of God, may employ myself 
in the same kind of works on the Sabbath-day, in doing good to 
the bodies and the souls of men, as in the miracle which I have 
just now performed." This, you will recollect, is the sentiment 
which Jesus delivered, in different words, on another occasion, 
— namely, that although we must not engage in worldly labours, 
yet it is lawful " to do good," even on the Sabbath-day. Or the 
meaning of our Saviour may be this: — "You accuse me of 
breaking the Sabbath, because I have performed a miracle 
on this day. Your accusation is absurd, if not impious; 
for you know that I could not perform miracles except 
by the power of God. You know that the power by 
which I have healed this sick and impotent man, is not so 
much my power, as the power of my heavenly Father, who 
dwelleth in me and doeth the works. It is God therefore, 
rather than me, whom you accuse of violating the Sabbath ; 
since it is by his Spirit that these miracles are wrought." We 
then read that the Jews, (v. 18,) " sought the more to kill him, 
because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that 
God was his Father, making himself equal with God." Such 
was their malicious interpretation of his words. Jesus did 
not make himself equal with God, oy calling God his Father; 
for God is the Father of all, especially of the good and holy. 
Perhaps, however, Jesus appeared to call God his Father in 
some peculiar sense; the language of the original (irxrspx 
ttiiov), certainly favours this opinion ; and if so, he was 
perfectly justified, for he was not only a good and holy man, 
but the Son of God in a high and especial sense, as the Christ, 
the Saviour of the world. Jesus then replies (v. 19), " Verily, 
verily, I say unto you, the Son can do nothing or himself, but 
what he seeth the Father do; for what things soever he doeth, 
these also doeth the Son likewise." I understand our Saviour 
to be here repeating, or further explaining, the sentiment which 
he had uttered in the 17th verse; as though he had said, £< I 
can do nothing of myself, as you perfectly well know, but every 
thing through the power and authority of my heavenly Father, 
in whose name I act, and by whom I am sent. The same kind 
of works, deeds of mercy and kindness, which 1 see my 
heavenly Father perform on the Sabbath day, I do likewise ; for 
I have herein his example and authority, and I know it to be his 
will that I should so employ myself, even on the Sabbath." Or 
the meaning maybe, I as I observed in speaking of the 17th 
verse, " do no other works on the Sabbath, than those which 
I see my heavenly Father do ; for, in truth, my works are the 
works of God, since it is by his power, not ray own, that these 



He 



LECTURE FIFTH, 



miracles to which you object are performed. I and my Father^ 
who dwelleth in me, are jointly engaged in working these 
miracles." But I must observe, in passing, that my reverend 
opponent suggests a correction in the translation of the latter 
part of this verse. He evidently considers this suggestion to be 
one of much importance, for he has dwelt upon it on several 
occasions. He says it should not be, " What things soever the 
Father doeth, these also doeth the Son but it should be, " the 
same also doeth the Son ;" the very same things which the 
Father doeth the Son doeth likewise. 1 grant that it should be 
so, if the Greek be literally translated. But can you perceive 
any such great difference between the two translations ? Is this 
one of the instances in which my reverend opponent thinks a 
new translation of the Scriptures would greatly add to the evi- 
dence for the deity of Christ ? If so, I vehemently suspect that 
he will not persuade other Trinitarians to set quite so high a 
value on his new translation as he himself manifestly does. But 
what is the inference which my reverend opponent would draw 
from this passage when thus corrected? He would infer that 
the Son can of himself do equal things with the Father, and 
therefore that the Son is equal in divine power with the Fattier, 
Nay, I object here again, that this is not the strictly logical 
inference from the premises. I cannot allow you in this 
manner always to infer just as much, or just as little, as may 
suit your convenience. If what things soever the Father doeth, 
the very same things doeth the Son, the rigid inference is, not that 
the power of the Son is equal to the power of the Father, but that 
the power of the Son is identically the same power as the power 
of the Father. I am very farfiom being certain, that this was 
not the precise meaning which our Saviour intended to express. 
This will harmonize with the sense which I have said may pro- 
bably belong to his words in the 17th verse, — namely, that the 
miracles which he wrought were in truth wrought by God; 
since his miraculous power was, in fact, the Almighty Power of 
the Father, manifested through him ; not an equal independent 
power, but identically the same power. The words of Jesus, 
when corrected as my reverend opponent suggests, appear to 
me either to convey this meaning, or to mean simply that 
Christ performed on the Sabbath the very same hind of works 
which he saw his heavenly Father perform on that day, works 
of compassion and benevolence. All this is further explained 
in the next verse : — " For the Father loveth the Son, (v. 20.) 
and sheweth him all things that himself doeth ; and he will shew 
him greater works than these, that ye may marvel." Here 
Jesus expressly declares, that it is the Father who sheweth. him 
all things; it is by the direction and authority of the Father 
that he knoweth what to do ; and by the power of the Father he 
is enabled to perform it. Surely, then, it is plain, beyond all 
contradiction, that Jesus cannot himself be God equal with the 
Fa! her. Moreover, it is here declared that the Father would, 
at some future time, shew the Son even greater works than he 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



117 



had yet accomplished. Surely this proves that Jesus Christ 
himseif was not God; for how could God receive any addition 
either to his knowledge or his power ? In this verse, you per- 
ceive, we have a complete explanation of the derived and depen- 
dent power of Jesus, shewing clearly that he is not God equal 
with the Father. What, then, does my reverend opponent say 
to this verse ? How does he reconcile its plain statements with 
his Trinitarian doctrine ? Astonishing as it may seem, (will 
you believe me when I say it ?) he leaves this verse out of con- 
sideration entirely, and purposely. 1 have his own authority 
for saying- so. He told you that " he would not read this 
twentieth verse, for he was concerned only with those verses 
which prove the equality of Christ with the Father." Well! 
this is one way of treating the Scriptures ; but I must be allowed 
to express my serious doubts whether it is altogether the right 
way, even in a case of great emergency, such as I grant yours 
to be. You leave out this verse? In a passage where Christ is 
speaking of his power in working miracles, there occurs a verse 
in which he positively declares, that it was the Father who 
shew r ed him these works, and who would afterwards shew him 
greater works ; and you propose " to leave out this verse," in 
order to countenance your doctrine that Christ was equal with 
the Father, and claimed to work all his miracles by his own 
divine power! I say this^is one way of treating the Scriptures; 
but is it the right way? I ask you, my brethren, what w r ould 
have been said of me, if I had done this ? — The walls and pillars 
of the fine edifice of St. Sidwell's Church would have rung with 
vehement cries of u audacity !" and the lofty roof would have 
echoed "audacity!" against the man who could dare to take 
such liberties with the word of God. 

I come now to the examination of another passage, which 
has been appealed to by my reverend opponent. It is found in 
the 11th ch. and 27th v. of the Gospel according to Matthew: 
" All things are delivered unto me of my Father : and no man 
knoweth the Son but the Father ; neither knoweth any man the 
Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal 
him." In this passage our Saviour affirms, that neither himself 
the Son, nor the Father, could be known to any man unless from 
divine revelation. They were known, he declares, only to each 
other. In what sense, in reference to what kind of knowledge, 
both of himself and the Father did Jesus make this assertion ? 
He says, in the verses preceding, " I thank thee, O Father, 
Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things 
from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes : 
— Even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight. — All 
things are delivered unto me of my Father." What things can 
it be supposed that our Lord is here speaking of ? Surely it is 
of the things which belong to the will and counsels of the 
Father for the redemption of mankind ? These were the only 
things, the knowledge of which could be revealed unto babes in 



118 



lecture; fifth. 



wisdom, though they were hidden from the unbelieving 1 Jews, 
the wise and prudent in their own conceit. Why, then, should 
it he imagined that Jesus alluded to any other kind of know- 
ledge, in the particular words under consideration, which imme- 
diately follow, " No one knoweth the Son but the Father ?" At 
that time, not even the chosen disciples of Christ had any 
accurate conceptions of the nature and objects of his divine 
mission. No one but God himself knew the purposes for which 
Jesus was sent into the world, or the means by which those pur- 
poses were to be accomplished. The glorious design of salva- 
tion for Jew and Gentile, was yet a mystery, an unrevealed 
secret, hidden in the bosom of God alone, or imparted only to 
his beloved Son. " Neither knoweth any man the Father save 
the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." This 
clause is reciprocal and correlative to the former. It follows, in 
the sense I have explained, that if no one but the Father knew 
the Son, no one but the Son could know the Father ; — though 
it would by no means follow according to the Trinitarian inter- 
pretation; for many persons might and did knowthe Godhead, the 
eternity, the infinite majesty and perfection of the Father, without 
having the least conception that these attributes belonged to the 
Son. But if no one except the Father knew the true nature of 
Christ's office and mission, (as was undoubtedly the case at this 
time), then no one except Christ, and he to whomsoever Christ 
should make the revelation, could know the all-merciful plans 
of the Father, contemplated in the Christian dispensation. It 
is evident, from the very construction of the passage, that the 
knowledge respecting the Son, is the same kind of knowledge 
as that which respects the Father. But it could not have been 
truly said of the persons to whom Jesus was now speaking, 
that they did not know the deity and eternal perfections of the 
Father, The Jews were thoroughly possessed of this know- 
ledge. It follows that the knowledge relating to the Son, which 
no one but the Father had, was not the knowledge of his deity 
and eternal perfections. The view taken of this passage by 
Trinitarians, is not only groundless ; but, as is very common 
in their methods of interpretation, it closely borders upon 
absurdity: — it deprives that, which is otherwise a very just and 
forcible passage, [of almost all point and meaning. What the 
Jews really did not know concerning the Father, and never 
could know until Christ had revealed it to them, was the great 
design of his wisdom and love commmunicated in the gospel. 
What no one but the Father knew concerning the Son, there- 
fore, was the part which he was to sustain, the means which he 
was to employ, the sufferings which he was to undergo, and the 
glorious success which was to crown his labours, in the fulfil- 
ment of this blessed design. Neither in the context, nor in the 
words themselves, is there any thing like an allusion to the 
incomprehensible perfections of the divine nature, in regard 
either to the Son or to the Father. These ideas are suggested 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



119 



to the minds of Trinitarians by the influence of their own 
previously admitted system, not by the language of the Scrip- 
tures. The words of Christ relate, not to a Darren metaphysical 
dogma, concerning the existence of a plurality of divine persons 
in the Godhead, but to a solemn practical truth. It is only 
through the revealed knowledge imparted to us by our Saviour, 
that we can properly know the Father, — his infinite goodness, 
his redeeming love, his purposes of grace and salvation for all 
his sinful creatures. 

I next find ray reverend opponent quitting the field of Scrip- 
ture, and betaking himself to that of metaphysics. I have cer- 
tainly no great inclination to follow him thither, but he draws 
me after him for a moment. He says that if we acknowledge 
the Father to be eternal, we must acknowledge the Son to be 
eternal likewise. Why must we do so? Because Father and 
Son are correlative terms, and he says it is a principle that the 
relative term always involves in it the existence of the correla- 
tive ; therefore, he says, the very existence of the Father in- 
volves in it the existence of the Son, and if the Father be 
eternal the Son also must be eternal. — I am not sure 'whether 
this will be generally recognized as orthodox doctrine ; I suspect 
not, but that does not concern me. I am quite satisfied that, 
whether it be orthodox or heterodox, it is egregious nonsense. 
I entreat you to consider it closely, and judge for yourselves if 
it be not so. I will not venture to speak of the absurdity of 
these propositions as I feel that I might do, lest I should possi- 
bly wound the pious feelings of any of my hearers. But I re- 
fer you to the Scriptures, (Hebrews ch. 1. v. 5.) "Thou art 
my Son, this day have I begotten thee." Does not that prove 
that the Father existed before the Son ? Moreover, 1 ask you, 
if you were called on to mention any two terms in the language 
which necessarily imply that the objects of them must co-eocist 
whether Father and Son are not the very last terms which you 
would ever have fixed upon for such a purpose? Do you feel 
it absolutely impossible to conceive, that a Father might 
exist before his own Son ? I may be told, perhaps, that 
such considerations, which are drawn from human connexions, 
do not apply to the divine nature. I willingly grant it ; but 
remember it was not I who produced this absurd argument. My 
opponent has no right to affix his own arbitrary meaning to 
the terms Father and Son, as applied to God and to Jesus 
Christ, and then out of that arbitrary meaning to weave such a 
subtlety as this. I am as eager to conclude these observations, 
as I was reluctant to commence them. T will only remark 
therefore, that feeble as my opponent's reasoning seems to me 
on the ground of Scripture, it is, if possible, still more feeble on 
the ground of metaphysics. 

We are next referred to the 22nd and 23rd verses of the 
4oth chap, of Isaiah : — " Look unto me and be ye saved, all the 
ends of the earth ; for I am God and there is none else ; I have 



120 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righte- 
ousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall 
bow, every tongue shall swear," — as compared with the 10th 
and 11th verses of the 14th chap, of the Epistle to the Romans, 
<tf We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, for it is 
written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, 
and every tongue shall confess to God ; so then every one of us 
shall give account of himself to God." Now, simply because, 
in Isaiah, Jehovah declares that every knee shall bow to him % 
and because this is quoted by the apostle Paul, in confirmation 
of the doctrine that we shall all stand before the judgment seat 
of Christ, therefore my reverend opponent concludes at once 
that Christ is God. But I ask you, as sober-minded and im- 
partial people, do you see any force in this conclusion? Do you 
recognise the validity of such arguments as these ? Since we 
know that Christ has been appointed by God to judge the world, 
shall we not bow the knee to God, shall we not give account of 
ourselves unto God, when we are brought before the judgment 
seat of Christ? Is not the declaration of Jehovah in this way 
strictly fulfilled, without implying, in the smallest degree, that 
Christ himself is Jehovah ? This, again, is one of those argu- 
ments, of which I told you that I should content myself with 
examining a few only of each kind. I am not afraid that such 
an argument will carry conviction to the mind of any unpreju- 
diced inquirer. I answer it, by simply referring you to the 
5th chap, of John's Gospel, where it is declared that " the 
Father hath coram itted all judgment unto the Son ; and to the 
37th chap, of the Acts of the Apostles, where it is declared 
that " God hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the 
world in righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained , or, 
as the original should rather be rendered, u by a man," by a 
human being, " whom he hath ordained." 

We are in the next place referred to the 56th verse of the 
78th Psalm. " Yet they tempted and provoked the most high 
God, and kept not his testimonies," — as compared with the 9th 
verse of the 10th chap, of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 
u Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, 
and were destroyed of serpents." Now here again, my reverend 
opponent argues that because, in the Psalm, it is declared that 
the person whom the Israelites tempted in the wilderness was 
the most High God, and because, (as my opponent erroneously 
affirms) the Apostle declares that the person whom the Israelites 
tempted was Christ, therefore Christ is the most High God. 
The argument is utterly fallacious, being entirely raised on 
erroneous suppositions. The Apostle does not declare, that 
the person whom the ancient Israelites tempted was Christ. 
This is entirely an inference drawn by my reverend opponent. 
In the first place, the reading of the passage is doubtful. 
Some ancient manuscripts, and other good authorities, instead 
of the word " Christ," have the word " Lord,",—-" Neither let 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



iis tempt the Lord." If this reading be correct, the argument 
of course falls entirely to the ground. But I am willing to 
take our common reading- ; and I say that the Apostle asserts 
no such thing, as that the person whom the Israelites tempted 
in the wilderness was Christ. He only says, " Let us not 
tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted," — whom? Not 
Christ ; there is no such word in the original. Something 
indeed must be supplied ; but surely we are bound to supply 
that which is plainly written in the Psalm, namely, " the 
most High God." You see, my brethren, that my reverend 
opponent can make no argument out of this passage, unless 
he is allowed to insert a word for which he has no authority. 
What would have been said of me, if I had thus put in a word 
to make out my argument? My opponent would have assumed 
his very pleasantest tone and manner, and he would have said^ 
" If now I should permit the Socinian just to take a pencil, 
and insert the little word 6 Christ' in this place, then indeed 
it would furnish him with an argument, but not otherwise ;** 
or if he had chanced to be in a different mood, he would have 
uttered solemn denunciations against the wicked audacity of 
the man, who could dare thus " to add to the word of God." 

Our attention is, in the next place, directed to the 1st. 
of the 23d Psalm S— " The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not 
want," — as compared with the 10th chap, of John's Gospel, 
where Christ declares that he is " the good shepherd" and that 
there shall be "one fold and one shepherd." This is surely a 
most trifling argument. Because David, to illustrate the care 
and tenderness of God towards him, calls the Lord his shepherd, 
and because our Saviour adopts the same simple allusion, to 
illustrate his care and tenderness towards "his Church, therefore 
my reverend opponent would conclude at once that Christ must 
be God. Do you perceive any force in such an argument ? 
The office of a shepherd, you know, is one of the com- 
monest and simplest that can be imagined. Does it follow, 
that because a metaphor is borrowed from this subject, to 
illustrate both the kindness of God and the compassionate 
tenderness of Christ, that therefore Christ and God must be 
one and the same being ? My reverend opponent, I find, has 
recommended to me the study of Watts's Logic; he thinks it 
may do me good. Perhaps it may ; I may then be able to see 
the accuracy of his method of reasoning; at present, I confess^ 
he appears to me to be one of the most inconclusive reasoners 
that ever took a great and serious argument in hand. 

We are next assured that Christ must be God, because hd 
took upon himself to change or abolish the institutions of 
Jehovah. We know, from the Old Testament, that Jehovah, 
appointed the Jewish Passover, and the Sabbath ; but Christy 
we are told, of his own authority abolished these divine insti- 
tutions, and superseded them by others of his oivn appointment ; 
therefore, it is inferred, Christ must be equal to Jehovah* 

M 



122 



XECTURB FIFTH. 



Nay, here I object again, that this is not the strict logical 
inference. If Christ, of his own authority, could rightfully 
abolish the institutions of Jehovah, and substitute for thena 
institutions of his own, the proper inference is, not that Christ 
is equal with Jehovah, but that he is greater than Jehovah. All 
which an equal being could do, of his own independent authority, 
■would be to set up other institutions, which might co-exist with 
those of Jehovah. But if Christ, as you say, of his own 
authority abolished the ordinances of God, and set up others 
in their stead, the strict inference is, either that he did that 
which was wrong, or that he must be greater than God. 
Seriously, my Christian friends, is there any strength, is there 
any propriety, in this argument, when all the circumstances 
are considered? Jesus Christ is sent into the world as the 
chosen messenger of God ; a voice from heaven proclaims, 
" This is my beloved Son, hear ye him ;" he proceeds to work 
the most astonishing miracles, in proof of his divine authority; 
lie tells you positively, that " the Father hath given him a com- 
mandment, what he should say, and what he should speak." 
On these grounds he assumes to abolish the institutions of the 
old dispensation, and to establish new and better institutions 
in their place. Upon which you charge him with claiming an 
equality with that Almighty Being, in whose name he had told 
you that he spoke and acted. Is this reasonable? I doubt, if 
the most sober-minded believers in the Trinitarian doctrine 
would approve of such a method of arguing. 

I will next examine an objection of my opponent to some 
observations formerly advanced by me. lie bad appealed, in 
proof of the omnipresence of Christ, to the 20 v. of the 18th 
chap, of Matthew. " For where two or three are gathered 
together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." I 
replied, that this passage should be understood with especial 
reference to the case of the twelve Apostles in the discharge 
of their divine misson. My reverend opponent now says, that 
this is the most gratuitous assumption he ever heard of. It 
certainly was not gratuitous, because I distinctly gave you my 
reasons for taking this view of the passage. I said, and 
I say again, that this 20th verse should be understood 
of the Apostles alone, in respect to the discharge of their 
Apostolic office, because the two or three verses preceding, 
■with which this verse is closely connected, do most unquestion- 
ably relate to the Apostles alone. Let us read those verses. 
" Verily, I say unto you, (v. 18), whatsoever ye shall bind on 
earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose 
on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Has such divine 
authority been given to the disciples of Jesus in all ages? Do 
not all Christians, Catholic and Protestant, understand this in 
reference to the Apostles exclusively ? Again ; — " I say unto 
you, (v. 19), That if two of you shall agree on earth as touch- 
ing any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them oi 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



123 



my Father which is in heaven." Is this a promise which the 
ordinary disciples of Jesus, in all times and places, can take 
to themselves without presumption? Is not this, likewise, 
uuiversally understood to relate to the Apostles alone, ia 
the discharge of their divine functions ? But if it be so, the 
twentieth verse does most surely relate to the Apostles ex- 
clusively, because it is introduced as a pledge, as a confirmation, 
of what is said in the preceding verses : — " For where two or 
three are gathered together in my name ; there am I in the 
midst of them." You see therefore, that my interpretation of 
this passage, whether right or wrong, is not perfectly gratuitous* 
In connection with this passage, I likewise offered some remarks 
on the 24th v. of the 20th chap, of Exodus ; " [n all places 
where I record my name, I will come unto thee, and I will 
bless thee." I stated that this could not relate to the real 
omnipresence even of Jehovah, but to his communication of 
spiritual favours and blessings to his faithful worshippers. I 
argued that it must be understood in this way, because Jehovah 
here promises that he will come unto his people ; and we know 
that, in regard to his actual omnipresence, God does not and 
cannot come, or go, to or from any place ; for in this sense he 
is at all times in all places. The promise must relate to the 
especial manifestation of his mercy and favour to the minds of 
sincere worshippers. If there be any parallel between the two 
passages, therefore, (though I can see little or none), it will 
rather tend to set aside, than to confirm, the Trinitarian inter- 
pretation, which refers the promise in the Gospel to the real 
personal omnipresence of Christ. How does my reverend oppo- 
nent answer these observations? He does not answer them; he 
could not answer them. But he does that, which he can always 
do when argument fails him. He declaims about something 
totally beside the question, and insinuates disgraceful charges 
against his opponent. He exclaims, " What, Sir, are you going 
to deny the omnipresence of the Eternal Jehovah, in order to 
deny the omnipresence of Christ ! ,? My brethren, let me ask you, 
Do you see any sense or justice whatever in that remark? 
Because, for particular reasons which I state, I think it 
necessary to interpret a certain expression, in a certain passage 
of Scripture, not of the real omnipresence of God, but of the 
manifestation of his favour to the hearts of his creatures, does 
it therefore follow that I must mean to deny altogether the 
omnipresence of God ? Is there any justice in such an insinuation 
against me on these grounds ? None at all ; but this is another 
of the arts of controversy. How weak and deluded must be the 
minds of those men, who think that the spread of divine truth 
can be permanently checked by such means. 

I now proceed to examine the observations of ray opponent, 
on the interpretation which I supported of the 6th v. of the 9th 
chap, of Isaiah. 

£ 2 



124 



LECTURE FIFTH* 



I endeavoured to shew, that all the epithets which occur in 
this verse are, according to Scriptural usage, fairly susceptible 
of a meaning which does not imply the proper deity of the person 
to whom they are ascribed. I argued, in particular, that the 
Words translated " Mighty God,-' are words both of which in other 
parts of Scripture, are applied to human beings; and that the 
latter word often signifies nothing more than astrong, powerful, 
or mighty person. My reverend opponent, as I understand him, 
now denies the truth of these statements. He says, that these 
two words are in Scripture a distinctive designation of Jehovah. 
He says this ; but, in my opinion, he does not, and cannot, 
prove it. He refers to three passages of Scripture, only one of 
Which (Isaiah, ch. 10, v. 21,) is at all to his purpose ; because 
in this passage alone do the two words occur together, so as to 
have the least appearance of a distinctive designation. In the 
other two passages (Deuteronomy, ch. 10, v. 17, and Jeremiah ? 
ch. 32. v. 18), the same two words do indeed occur, in reference 
to Jehovah, but not immediately together, only in the midst of 
other epithets, such as " great," " terrible," which no one can 
doubt may be given to other persons besides God. This appears 
£ven in the English translation of the passage in Deuteronomy* 
but in the original it is so in both passages. Now, there is no 
question, you must remember, that these epithets may be applied 
to Jehovah; all which we contend for is, that they may also be 
applied^ and are applied, in Scripture, to other persons, to 
human beings; and therefore that in themselves they carry no 
evidence of the proper deity of the person to whom they are 
applied. But my reverend opponent affects not to know of any 
principle, by which he may determine when these epithets apply 
to God, and when to some other person. I answer, By the very 
same principle, by which we are left to determine the applica- 
tion of a thousand other words, which are sometimes used in 
reference to God, and sometimes in reference to other persons. 
We must be guided always by the context, and by other general 
considerations. When I read that the person (Isaiah, ch. 9 
v. 6), to whom the Hebrew word, (V&) is applied, is declared! 
to be a child that was to be born, I conclude that he is not 
Jehovah ; on the very same principle on which I conclude that 
|dng Nebuchadnezzar is not Jehovah, although the very same 
Hebrew word is applied to him, (Ezekiel, ch. 31, v. 11) ; on the 
very same principle on which I conclude, likewise, that certain 
other persons are not each of them Jehovah, although both the 
words which occur in the 9th of Isaiah are likewise applied to 
them (Ezekiel, ch. 32, v. 21). My reverend opponent is not a 
man of such simplicity, as to be wholly ignorant of this principle, 
which is necessary to the rational interpretation of almost every 
page of the Bible. Yet he positively declares that the words 
which occur in the 9th of Isaiah, u can be translated no other 
way," than "Mighty God," and that they 5' can apply to no 
9fher person than Jehovah." Martin Luther thought other- 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



1 2a 



wise ; for, as T stated to you in a former Lecture, he has trans- 
lated the words, strong, hero. Gesenius, who is probably the 
greatest Hebrew scholar in the world, gives a similar translation. 
But these great men will perhaps be declared by my reverend 
opponent, (as he declares of Arians and Socinians), "miserably 
deficient indeed" in their knowledge of the Hebrew language. 
I can discover no qualifications in him which entitle him to 
talk in this presumptuous strain. In my former observations on 
the prophecy in Isaiah, I stated that the same word which is 
there applied to the Messiah, and translated " God," is applied 
to Moses, to Nebuchadnezzar, and to various other persons. 
What says my reverend opponent to this? He exclaims that 
" there is not an instance in the whole Scripture, in which. 
Moses is called "Mighty God." Who ever said there 
was ? Then again, he exclaims, after reading the passage in 
Ezekiel, that " Nebuchadnezzar is not called Mighty God." — « 
Who ever said he was ? I read the passage to you, in which. 
Nebuchadnezzar is styled " mighty one of the heathen ;" and 
therefore I could not have been so stupid as to represent that he 
was there called "Mighty God." What I stated to you was, 
that the very same Hebrew word, which is applied to Christ in 
the 6th of Isaiah, and translated "God," is likewise applied 
to Moses, and to Nebuchadnezzar, in which latter instance it is 
translated "mighty one." This is undeniably true; and 
I contend that my argument on this passage remains unshaken. 

I will, in the next place, examine my opponent's further 
remarks on the proposed Unitarian reading of the 5th v. of the 
9th ch. of the Epistle to the Romans. My answer to this Trini- 
tarian argument was, that, without taking any unwarrantable 
liberty with the Scriptures, we may apply the latter part of this 
verse, not to Christ, but to the God and Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. We may close the sentence at the word " came ;" 
and take the remainder of the verse, either as a doxology, thus, 
" God, who is over all, be blessed for ever ;" or otherwise we 
may take it, (which method of reading the passage I told you 
that I preferred), as a simple assertion, thus, " He who was 
overall was God blessed for ever." My reverend opponent 
first inquires, whether I have the authority of the Holy Ghost 
for thus altering the Scriptures ? My brethren, he knows 
perfectly well, that the punctuation of the Scriptures is not the 
work of the Holy Ghost. Nobody believes this, whatever views 
they may entertain of the inspiration of the Scriptures. There 
is neither justice nor sense, therefore, in my opponent's insinua- 
tion. I must have been hard driven, before I could have stooped 
to ask such an invidious question of him. I answer, however, 
that I have precisely the same authority for supporting a differ- 
ent punctuation of this passage, as he has for supporting the 
common punctuation. He further inquires, whether I have 
ever seen the autographs of the Apostles? I again throw my- 
self on your recollection, whether I have said one word about 

m 3 



126 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



the autographs of the Apostles ? What I did say was this,— 
that the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament* in existence, 
are without punctuation, and even without space between the 
words ; and therefore that the whole business of pointing, and 
arranging the sentences of Scripture, being the work of unin- 
spired men, is a fair subject of rational and sober criticism. 
This is what I said; and though, after the experience I have 
had, I can scarcely affirm what my reverend opponent will not 
do, I think he will hardly venture to contradict these plain facts. 
But, as usual, he endeavours to hide the truth in needless de- 
clamation about the autographs of the Apostles ! My reverend 
opponent next delivers a remark on this subject, which for gross 
inaccuracy will not be easily matched. He says he will " tell 
me that every Manuscript, every Version, every Father, every 
Heretic, agrees in adopting the very punctuation of this text 
which occurs in our version !" Yes ! — he may " telV me this 
a thousand times over; — I shall not believe it once, because I 
know it to be most erroneous. Yet, what does it signify whe- 
ther I will believe this assertion? — nine-tenths of those to 
whom it was addressed did believe it implicitly ; and the 
purpose was answered. I would request any of my respected 
brethren in the ministry, Churchmen or Dissenters, just to look 
either at Griesbach's or Wetstein's note on this passage, but 
particularly the latter, and then to tell me, whether my reverend 
opponent's assertions on matters of this kind are worthy of a 
moment's reliance. There are few passages of Scripture to be 
found, in which the punctuation, by the Fathers and other 
ancient Christian writers, is more unsettled. The learned 
editors of the New Testament to whom I haye referred, in 
their notes on the passage, have collected abundant evidence of 
this fact. Wetstein, in particular, has shewn that some of the 
most distinguished ornaments of the Christian Church in early 
times, expressly denied that Christis ever called " God overall;" 
and consequently they never could have read the passage as my 
opponent does, but must have read it in the manner which 
Unitarians approve. As authority for putting a full-stop after 
the word ca^a, fleshy and taking the rest of the verse as a 
separate sentence, Griesbach quotes not only an ancient 
Manuscript, but " Mnlti Patres qui Christum rov etti wavruv Qsov 
appellari posse negant" — " many of the Fathers, who deny that 
Christ can be called God over all." So monstrously inaccurate 
are the statements to which you have been listening, and in 
which many of you doubtless thought you might place entire 
confidence. My opponent further says, that 1 took my 
suggestion concerning this passage either from the "Improved 
Version," or from Mr. Locke ; and he says that he thinks he has 
several times detected me in going to the Improved Version. 
Only think, my brethren, of detecting a minister of the gospel in 
looking into such a shocking book as a critical edition of the 
New Testament! But here my opponent's acuteness, mar* 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



127 



vellous as it is, has for once misled him ; for I declare that I have 
never had the " Improved Version" in my hand during this 
controversy. The hook is no great favourite of mine, nor ever 
was ; though I am persuaded, that a great deal which 
Trinitarian disputants have said against it is false and ridiculous. 
But then, it seems, if I did not take my alteration of this text 
from the Improved Version, I must have taken it from Mr. 
Locke. Now I think you must allow, that if I had done so, I 
need not be greatly ashamed of my authority. Wiser men than 
either I or my opponent have been content to learn of John 
Locke. It so happens, however, that Mr. Locke's reading of 
this passage is somewhat different, both from the common ver- 
sion, and from either of those which I have suggested ; so that 
here again my reverend opponent's acuteness misleads him. He 
further says, on this subject, that the alteration of this passage 
which I have supported betrays a grievous ignorance of the 
simplest principles of the Greek language. I told you he would 
say so ; but I am most happy to find him now giving his reasons 
for this assertion. I am always delighted when he condescends to 
do this. I know that as long as he deals in bare assertions, he 
has greatly the advantage over me ; because he is addressing an 
audience who will implicitly believe almost every thing that he 
says, and very little indeed that I say. But whenever I see 
that he is about to state his reasons, I always begin to hope that 
the advantage will soon be on my side. He has done so in this 
case, and I will examine his reasons. First, he says, that in 
order to justify the translation of this passage as a doxology, 
the Unitarian must be allowed to change the order of the 
words in the original ; to take the word (zvXoyyros) " blessed," 
out of its present position at the end of the clause, and remove 
it towards the beginning. This I think is a mistake, and I will 
endeavour to shew that it is. I grant, indeed, that if it were not 
for some peculiar circumstances, which call for a different con- 
struction, the word, (svXoyyro?,) " blessed," in a doxology, 
would most likely be placed at the beginning. But I deny that 
it must necessarily be placed there; and I say that here there 
are the peculiar circumstances which call for a different con- 
struction. I may observe, however, that one clear example has 
been pointed out, in the Septuagint version of the 19th v. of 
the 68th Psalm, in which this word is placed at the end of the 
clause, though there seems to be there no particular reason for 
such a construction. In the instance before us, however, I 
apprehend that the participle, zvKoynras, is necessarily placed 
where it is, on account of its connection with the other words, 
(ats rovs aimots,) with which it forms a phrase, " blessed for 
ever." (See Romans, 1. v. 25.) You know that in our own 
language, as indeed in all languages, when certain words are as 
it were, linked together in a phrase, the order in which they stand 
to one another becomes fixed by custom, and cannot be 
disturbed without great awkwardness, For example, take 



128 



LECTURE FIFTH'. 



our phrase, " in Parliament assembled," which we usually put at 
the head of petitions to the Houses of Lords and Commons, W e 
could not change the order of the words, and say k< assembled in 
P arliament." And yet if we had to use the very same participle 
" assembled," even in reference to the very same persons, if 
it were not in this settled phrase, we might and we should place 
it in a different part of the sentence. In much the same way, 
then, I conceive the Greek word which here means " blessed, " 
is linked with the other words which mean " for ever and as 
these latter words must, from custom, be placed at the end of 
the clause, (especially followed by " Amen,") the former word 
is placed there likewise, even in a doxology, where otherwise 
it might naturally enough be placed at the beginning. On 
these grounds, then, I submit that my reverend opponent's 
objection is altogether superficial. He further objects, that in 
order to justify the rendering of this passage as a doxology, the 
Unitarian must be allowed to insert what he calls the little word 
" be," or the imperative of the Greek verb, (£<rrw) which 
signifies " be." This is another mistake, and I will prove it to 
be so. The Unitarian will need to take no such liberty ; for the, 
plain reason, that the sacred writers themselves are not accuse 
tomed to insert the said little word "be," in sentences of this 
kind. Let any one, with the Greek Testament in his hand, turn 
to the 1st, ch. and 3d v. of the Epistle to the Ephesians: — 
" Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
Here the Apostle himself has omitted the verb, " be," although 
the different idiom of our language requires us to insert it, as 
our translators have done. So again in the 1st Epistle of Peter, 
ch. 1, v. 3: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord 
Jesus Christ." Here likewise, by another Apostle, the verb* 
" be" is omitted in the Greek, although it must be supplied in 
the English. This objection of my reverend opponent, there- 
fore, is worse than superficial. It is an objection which any 
raan of learning, as he is, should have blushed to advance. My 
opponent has been pleased to say, on one occasion, that he 
would rather become an infidel at once, than he would have used 
a certain argument which I employed, I will not be so hard 
upon him ; but I can truly say, that I would much sooner have 
kept silence, than have stooped to avail myself of such a delu- 
sion as this, merely because I happened to be addressing an 
unlearned audience. On the whole, then, I conclude that my 
reverend opponent has brought forward no solid objections to 
the reading of this passage as a doxology to God the Father. 
But I must again advert to the circumstance, that although I 
mentioned this as a justifiable mode of reading the passage, I 
told you, in my former Lectures, that I preferred the opinion of 
those who would read it, not as a doxology, but as a simple 
assertion, in this way, "He who was over ail was God, blessed 
forever." What says my opponent to this? — Not a syllable^ 
he has taken not the slightest notice of it in any way. 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



120 



I will now briefly examine my reverend opponent's remarks 
upon another passage of Scripture, formerly considered. It is 
in the 1st chap, and 8th verse of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
"Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever." In the first place, 
I had observed that the 45th Psalm, from which this sentence 
is taken, appears to have been originally addressed to Solomon. 
This my opponent says again is the most gratuitous assumption 
he ever heard of. He would have you believe that there is not 
the slightest reason for supposing that it was addressed to 
Solomon. But I think, if you read the Psalm attentively, you 
will be of a different opinion. I stated to you before, that the 
Psalm is generally considered to have been written immediately 
after the marriage of Solomon with the daughter of a foreign 
king. Now just read the 9th and following verses, and observe 
how well they agree with this supposition : — " Kings daughters 
were among tbv honourable women ; upon thy right hand did 
stand the queen in gold of Ophir." Does not this relate to 
Solomon, think you? In the next verse the young queen her- 
self is addressed : — " Hearken, O daughter, and consider, and 
incline thine ear ; forget also thine own people, and thy father's 
house ; so shall the king greatly desire thy beauty, for be is thy 
lord, and worship thou him." Then again, in the 16th verse ? 
" instead of thy Father, shall be thy children, whom thou 
mayest make princes in all the earth." Does not this relate to 
the newly wedded queen of Solomon? I think you will now 
admit, at all events, that the idea of this Psalm having been 
originally addressed to Solomon is not quite so gratuitous an 
assumption as my opponent would persuade you to believe. 
But if this was its original application, and if our present trans- 
lation of the 6th verse, (quoted in " Hebrews"), be correct, the 
word " God" must of course be taken in an inferior sense, as 
signifying merely Prince, or Ruler* As I told you, however, I 
prefer the opinion of those who would translate the passage 
in this way :— " God is thy throne for ever and ever." My 
opponent again declares, that such a translation betrays a total 
ignorance of the construction of the Greek language ; and here 
likewise, fortunately for me, he condescends to give his reasons. 
He says that if this had been the meaning the word (fyfovos-,) 
41 throne," which is what is called the predicate m the sentence, 
must have been without the article. Now, that it might, and in 
the best classical Greek probably would, have been without the 
article, I will not undertake to deny ; but that it must have been 
so, according to Scriptural Greek, I will deny ; because I have 
already referred to a passage in the Septuagint version of the 
73rd Psalm, (v. 26), where there is a precisely similar con- 
struction, the article being used before both the subject and the 
predicate, and the order of the words being the same; the 
meaning of which passage, undoubtedly, is this,— " God is my 
portion for ever." Perhaps you think, that if my reverend 
Opponent had known of this fact ? he would noc have been <juit§ 



130 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



so dogmatical in his assertions. You are mistaken. He 
cares no more for the authority of the Septuagint Trans- 
lators, than for the authority of Bishop Lowth, or Grotius, 
or Erasmus, or any other great scholar. He cares for 
nothing but his own positive opinions, which he is pleased to call 
" the Bible but which you know are not the Bible, any 
more than mine or any other man's opinions are the Bible. 
I venture to say this, because I directed his and your at- 
tention to this passage in the Septuagint, in my former 
Lectures, and my opponent has taken no notice of it. He prefers 
to go on repeating his own assertions, which have already been 
confuted. But he further objects, that it would be very absurd 
to represent God himself as addressing the Son, and saying to 
him, " God is thy throne for ever and ever/' I answer that the 
Scriptures are chargeable with no such absurdity. The passage, 
as quoted in " Hebrews," is not said to have been addressed 
by God to the Son; nor as having ever been uttered by God at 
ail ; nor even as ever having been directly addressed to the Son 
by any person. I stated this also to you, and gave my reasons 
for it, in the former Lecture. The just rendering of the passage 
undoubtedly is, not " unto the Son," — but, " concerning the 
Son." You will also observe that it is not written, " God 
saith," — but simply, " he saith," or "it sarin." We are left 
to our own judgments to determine by whom this was originally 
said ; and to ascertain this point, we must look to the 45th Psalm. 
We shall there discover, that it is not God who is represented 
as uttering these words, but the author of the Psalm, whosoever 
he was. And again, look to the 7th verse of this 1st chapter of 
the Hebrews, which relates to the angels, and is exactly parallel 
in construction to the 8th verse : — " And concerning the angels 
he saith," or it saith, " Who maketh his angels spirits, and his 
ministers aflame of fire." This was certainly never addressed by 
God to the angels. But, again I say, the 7th and 8th v T erses are. 
exactly parallel in construction. They are, as it were, poised 
against one another : — " concerning the angels he saith," thus ; 
but concerning the Son he saith," thus. It being certain, then, 
that the words of the 7th verse were never addressed by God 
to the angels, why should it be supposed that the words in the 
8th verse were ever addressed by God to the Son ? The proper 
meaning of the 8th verse seems to be this : "But concerning 
the Son, he saith," that is, the writer of the 45th Psalm saith, 
or the Scripture saith, " God is thy throne for ever and ever." 
There is no just pretension, therefore, for considering these 
words as ever having been directly addressed by the Father to 
Christ ; and all my opponent's declamation on this point rests 
on a groundless assumption. Similar observations apply to all 
that he has said concerning the 10th and two following verses 
of this 1st ch. of the Hebrews : " Thou, Lord, in the beginning 
hast laid the foundation of the earth," &c. Those verses are 
not said by the inspired writer ever to have been addressed to 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



131 



the Son. They only" contain sentiments which in some way 
relate to the kingdom of the Son ; and what that relation is, I 
proved in my former Lecture. I conclude therefore, again, that 
the remarks of my opponent on my interpretation of this passage 
are altogether insufficient to overthrow it. 

On the expressions Alpha and Omega, " the first and the 
last," which occur in the Apocalypse, my reverend opponent 
has given a long reply. He has laboured hard to establish two 
facts, (neither of which, as it appears to me, has he been able 
to prove,) namely, that the declaration, " I am -Alpha and 
Omega," is ascribed to Jesus Christ in the Revelation ; and 
that the other similar expression, (t I am the first and the last," 
where it occurs in Isaiah, denotes the proper eternity of God, 
and therefore must denote the eternity of Christ, when it is 
applied to him in the Apocalypse. His only argument in sup- 
port of the former position, seems to be drawn from the con- 
sideration that it must be Christ, and not the Father, who is 
" to come with clouds," and to " come quickly." I may grant 
this, but it will avail him nothing ; for it is not said, nor inti- 
mated, by the writer of the Apocalypse, that the person who is to 
" come with clouds," and to " come quickly, " is the same 
person who calls himself " Alpha and Omega." Jesus Christ 
is not speaking in either of the instances where those words 
are found. Then again, with respect to the expression, " the 
first and the last," where it occurs in Isaiah, my opponent can- 
not prove, though he vehemently asserts, that it is used to 
signify the eternity of Jehovah. It appears to me, still, to be 
used to signify that Jehovah, the true God, was the Author and 
Finisher of the events spoken of in the prophecy. I am also of 
opinion, that it has a similar meaning, when applied in the 
Apocalypse to our Saviour. My opponent, as a Trinitarian, 
may well believe otherwise, but he has offered no proof that his 
belief on this point is correct, or that my belief is erroneous. 

I think it is in this connexion, (but if in another connexion it 
is of no consequence,) that I meet with one of those insinuations 
of my reverend opponent, which it is so painful, but so necessary, 
for me to notice. He says that I am a person who may very 
probably sneer at all mention of redemption through the 
precious blood of Christ ; or some expression of this kind. 
My brethren, what do you say to such insinuations ? Is this 
the spirit in which it becomes a Clergyman to defend his 
religious convictions. My respected friends of this Unitarian 
congregation, I have been your minister for twelve years ; I 
have preached to you hundreds of Sermons concerning the 
doctrines and precepts of the gospel. Did you ever know me 
sneer at the precious blood of Christ, or any thing relating to 
so serious a subject ? Have I not many times pointed out to 
you, hew intimately the suffering and the death of Christ are 
connected with the truth, the divinity, and the efficacy of the 
gospel ? Have I not often endeavoured to illustrate this fact to 



132 



lECTURE FIFTH. 



your understandings, and to bring home the consideration of ft 
to your hearts, to induce you in a suitable manner to love and 
revere the Lord Jesus Christ, who loved us and gave himself 
for us, that by the power of his benevolent sacrifice on the cross, 
in conjunction with all the other holy influences of his gospel, 
he might redeem us from iniquity and reconcile us unto God ? 
And now you hear what my opponent says, that 1 shall be likely 
to sneer at all mention of the precious blood of Christ! And 
when he has said this, what does he do ? He takes himself 
few ay $ and declares that he will bestow no notice upon any 
reply which may be made to his observations ! Certain T am, 
that the strong disapprobation of the generous and candid of alt 
parties will follow him for such conduct. 

My reverend opponent has noticed the views which I ad- 
vanced respecting the passge in the 1st ch. of the Epistle to the 
Colossians, where it is supposed that proper creation is ascribed 
to Jesus Christ. He says that this cannot relate to a moral 
creation, because it must then have been said that u all persons" 
and not " all things," were created by him. Is it possible, that 
he can be ignorant of so common an idiom of the Scriptures, as 
that of putting things for persons, or rather, the use of neuter 
adjectives and substantives in reference to persons. It is an 
idiom especially used by this Apostle, and has been observed 
by all sound commentators. What does my opponent himself 
understand, where it is written that God would " reconcile alt 
things unto himself?" Does not that mean persons? Who 
but persons can be reconciled unto God? But my opponent 
further objects, that it cannot be the moral regeneration of the 
world which is spoken of in this place, because there is mention 
made of " all things in heaven" as well as " all things on 
earth." He wishes to know who there is in heaven that is 
capable of becoming the subject of a moral creation. All things 
in heaven, he says, would include the angels, who have never 
fallen. Now, this he said before, and I have before given a 
positive demonstration of its fallacy. I have shewn you from 
the Scriptures, even from the context of this very passage, that 
whatever is meant by " all things in heaven" they certainly are 
the subjects of moral regeneration, as well as the " things on 
earth." Do we not read, in the 20th v., that it is the will of God 
" to reconcile all things unto himself by Christ, whether they 
be things in earth, of things in heaven ?" Do we not also read,- 
in the 1st Chap, of the Epistle to the Ephesians, that it is the 
will of God " to gather together in one all things in 
Christ, both ivhich are in heaven, and which are on earth ?" 
It is very plain therefore, both that " all things" must 
mean all persons, and that the things in heaven, as well 
as the things on earth, are the subjects of God's moral 
dispensations through the ministry of Jesus Christ. 
1 conclude therefore, again, that the interpretation of this 
passage in Colossians, which I have defended, cannot be; 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



133 



overthrown. But my opponent wonders, forsooth, how any 
Arian or Socinian could reply to an Atheist, if he were to 
propose a similar interpretation of the 1st. chap, of Genesis, 
or of any other passage of Scripture which treats of the 
natural creation. There is something exceedingly amusing in 
this remark, inasmuch as every one must perceive that an Atheist, 
as such, would be quite as thoroughly confuted by proving that 
God is the author of a moral, as by proving that he is the 
author of a physical creation. No proper Atheist could believe 
the one more than the other. It would be an amusing exhibi- 
tion of folly indeed, to hear any man profess himself an Atheist, 
and then contend that God is the author only of a moral 
creation. It is not worth while for me to gratify my reverend 
opponent's wonder, by shewing him how I, as a Unitarian, 
should proceed to confute such an Atheist. Whenever I meet 
with such an one, I will engage to answer him better than my 
reverend opponent has answered me. 

I come now to examine my opponent's remarks on the 
subject of the worship of Christ. Here again, he calls in an 
imaginary Atheist to his assistance. He wishes to know, if the 
24th v. of the 4th chap, of John's Gospel were to be quoted, — 
" God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him 
in spirit and in truth," — and an Atheist were to object that 
this does not mean supreme, religious worship, — he wishes to 
know how, on my principle of reasoning concerning those 
passages which speak of the worship of Christ, I should be able 
to confute the said Atheist ? In other words, if I understand 
him rightly, my opponent wishes to know why I conclude, 
from the simple mention of worship, that supreme religious 
adoration is meant, in the case of the Father, the true God, 
any more than in the case of Jesus Christ? I answer that I do 
not draw such a conclusion, from such premises alone, in the 
former case any more than in the latter. I conclude that the 
Father is to be worshipped supremely from these two considera- 
tions combined ; first, that I am commanded to worship him, 
and secondly, that I know him to be truly and properly God, 
a Spiritual and Infinite Being; and therefore I know, that the 
only worship which is suitable to be offered to him, must be the 
supreme, religious adoration of the soul. But in the case of 
Jesus Christ, the latter of these two considerations does not 
exist, to my conviction. I do not know, and I do not believe, 
that Jesus Christ is truly and properly God ; and therefore I do 
not conclude that the homage which I am bound to pay him is 
to be supreme, religious adoration. In short, as I have ex- 
plained to you before, the term "ivorship" is employed with so 
much latitude in the Scriptures, that we must in all cases judge 
of the kind of worship or homage intended, by what we know, 
on other grounds, of the nature and dignity of the person who 
is said to be worshipped. This, therefore, is the way in which I 
should proceed to confute the Atheist; if, again, I should ever 

N 



134 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



meet with an Atheist foolish enough, to argue with me respect- 
ing the kind of worship to be offered to a Being whom he did 
not believe to exist ! 

When treating of this subject in my former Lectures, I had 
to examine the instance of Stephen, who is thought to have 
offered religious worship to Christ in his dying moments. I do 
not perceive that my reverend opponent has given any substantial 
confutation of my views of that passage ; but in the course of 
my remarks, I happened to say, that "I apprehended no Jew 
would have addressed solemn prayer to Jehovah without 
kneeling,'' and that Stephen did not kneel until after he had 
said, "Lord Jesus receive my spirit." JVIy opponent, I find, has 
seized upon this unimportant remark w 7 ith great eagerness, and 
has triumphantly shewn how very ignorant I must be of the 
Scriptures to have made such an observation. It was a mere 
hasty, unpremeditated observation, which occurred to my mind 
at the moment of speaking. I now clearly perceive, and I am 
quite ready to confess, that I cannot support it by any sufficient 
authority. I must again observe however, injustice to myself, 
that it was a very unimportant observation, which did not in the 
slightest degree affect my general argument upon the conduct 
of Stephen. 

But T have now to call your attention to a trifling mistake 
on the part of my opponent. To shew the latitude with which 
the term ivorship is employed in the Scriptures, I had referred 
to the 20th v. of the 29th chap, of the 1st. Book of Chronicles, 
where the congregation of Israel are said to have bowed down 
their heads, and worshipped, at the same time, the Lord Jehovah, 
and the king; that is, as 1 stated, king David. My reverend 
opponent declares that this is one of the most gratuitous things 
he ever heard of in his life. He says that "the king," who is 
here mentioned, is not David, but Jehovah himself, that " the 
Lord, and the king" mean the same person ! It will be evident 
to every one who looks at the passage, that, at all events, the 
authors of our common version understood the passage as I 
have represented it ; for they have translated it so as clearly to 
convey this sense. We read that " the people bowed down their 
heads and worshipped the Lord, and the king ;" inserting a 
comma after the word "Lord," using the conjunction "and," 
and putting a small k in the word " king." But I contend 
moreover, that it will be evident to any one who looks at the 
original Hebrew, that the passage could be properly rendered in 
no other way than as our translators have given it, so as to make 
the Lord and the king signify two different persons. It is not, 
C^ich mrr 1 ?), but it is, (^D^l mn^), it is not, "the 
Lord, the King," but it is, "the Lord, and the king." For a 
similar construction in the Hebrew, we may look to the 21st. v. 
of the 24th chap, of the Proverbs. " My son, fear thou the Lord 
and the king; and meddle not with them that are given to 
change." On the other hand, for such a 'construction in the 



LJECTURB FIFTH. 



135 



Hebrew, as would probably have been found in this passage of 
the Chronicles, if the meaning of it had been what my reverend 
opponent so strangely imagines, we may look to the 6th v. of the 
98th Psalm : " Make a joyful noise before the Lord, the King." 
If I thought that my words would reach the ears of any of my 
respected brethren in the Ministry, I would beg the favour 
of their turning to their Hebrew Bibles, and observing the 
copulative particle, (1, and,) before the latter word, in this 
passage of the Chronicles ; and then let them tell me, whether 
my reverend opponent is precisely the man who is best entitled 
to fling about his charges of "gross ignorance," and "miserable 
deficiency," against those who differ from him in the interpreta- 
tion of a passage of Scripture. If he made his observations 
on this subject thoughtlessly and recklessly, that is one thing; 
but if he did examine the passage, and consider what he was 
saying, when he declared that the king here mentioned does 
not mean king David, but Jehovah, then I say that he has made 
one of the most extraordinary blunders that was ever made by 
a professedly learned man. Now, I am willing to make my 
reverend opponent an offer ; and I consider it to be a very 
generous orfer on my part. If he will forgive me my great 
mistake, in supposing that the Jews always knelt when they 
prayed to Jehovah, I will forgive him his little mistake in 
confounding Jehovah with king David. 

I have only further to observe, on this subject, that my 
opponent has indulged in a long tirade, against what he is 
pleased to consider as my absurdity in believing that there are 
two kinds of worship mentioned in the Scriptures, a higher and 
alowerkindof worship. He says that, on this principle, I 
ought to become a Roman Catholic ! My brethren, he knows 
perfectly well that, whether I am right or wrong in my views of 
the worship due to Christ, that there certainly are two, and 
more than two, kinds of worship mentioned in the Scriptures. 
The fact cannot be unknown to any intelligent reader of the 
Bible. It must be so, because human beings, others besides 
Jesus Christ, are said to be worshipped, as well as God; and 
the same Greek verb is employed, The plain truth appears to 
be, that as in the case of the word " Lord," (which I explained 
in the last Lecture), the same Greek word is used in the New 
Testament to represent two different Hebrew verbs, one of 
which means properly to worship, in the highest sense, and the 
other simply to bow down to, or to render obeisance. I con- 
clude therefore, again, that the views which I before advanced, 
respecting the worship of Christ, have received no solid con- 
futation. 

I have now to make a few observations on my text, and 
then immediately conclude. Jesus says to his disciples, " I and 
my Father are one." 

My reverend opponent represents the Unitarian interpre- 
tation of this passage to be, that Christ and God are of one opi- . 

» 2 



136 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



nionf that they agree in opinion! When i?nd where, I ask, 
has any Unitarian spoken or written in this manner? When 
did any Unitarian ever talk so vainly, as to speak of the opi- 
nion of Almighty God? Never; it is altogether the invention 
of my opponent ; an invention well adapted to bring contempt 
upon that which he will not find it so easy to confute. The 
Unitarian interpretation is, that Christ here speaks of a moral 
unanimity of purpose and operation between himself and the 
Father, not founded, as my opponent strangely represents, on 
any mere agreement of opinion between the two, but upon the 
entire conformity and submission of the will of Christ to the 
supreme will of the Father, in all things concerning human 
redemption; so that the promises of Christ, made in his Fa- 
ther's name, would assuredly be fulfilled, But here my reve? 
rend opponent has recourse to another strange misrepresenta- 
tion. He says, there would be no sense in this declaration of 
Christ, unless on the implied supposition that, if he were not 
thus one with the Father, he, Jesus Christ, would he able to 
thwart and frustrate the intentions of the Father ? Yes, my op- 
ponent tells you, that when a person makes a declaration that 
he and another are unanimous, especially when he makes this 
declaration to inspire security that a certain thing which he pro- 
mises shall come to pass, there would be no meaning 
in such a declaration, unless upon the supposition that, if 
the two were not unanimous, he who makes the declara^ 
tion could thwart and frustrate the intentions of the other. 
I answer confidently, that it is no such thing. This represen- 
tation of my opponent is grounded on a perfect fallacy. It is 
astonishing, that intelligent people should listen to such so- 
phistry for a moment, without immediately detecting and des- 
pising it. It does not follow, when any person makes such a 
declaration as we here attribute to Christ, that he, the person 
speaking, would otherwise be able to thwart the intentions of 
him with whom he declares himself to be unanimous. It only 
follows, at the utmost, that if they were not thus unanimous, 
one of the two might thivart the purposes of the other. It is not 
necessary that this power should be in the person speaking ; on 
the contrary, it may just as well be in the person of ivhom he 
speaks. It is, in fact, precisely so in the present case. If 
Christ were not, as he really is, perfectly one with the Father 
in design and operation concerning human redemption, then 
indeed the Father might thwart, or might fail to bring to pass, 
the promise of Christ made in his name. And who can doubt 
that it would be so ? But we are sure, that the mind of Christ 
was in no respect at variance with the will of God. He was 
one with the Father, through his perfect knowledge of the 
Father's purposes ; and therefore the Father will not frustrate, 
will not fail to accomplish, but will certainly bring to pass, all 
which Christ hath promised to his faithful disciples. This is 
the true meaning and spirit of our Saviours declaration. My 



LECTURE FIFTEt. 



13J 



opponent may pervert it if he will ; but he can only pervert it, 
as we have seen, through the use of as weak u fallacy as ever 
was resorted to by man. 

That the sense which we put upon this saying of our Lord 
is correct, seems to be plainlv indicated by his justification of 
himself to the Jeivs, when they immediately accused him of 
blasphemy : — " Is it not written in your Law, (v. 34,) I said ye 
are gods? If he called them gods to whom the word of God 
came, and the Scripture cannot be broken ; say ye of him, 
whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou 
blasphemest, because I said I am the Son of God ?" What is 
meant by being " sanctified,*' and " sent into the world," may 
be learnt from ether parts of this Gospel, where Jesus prays 
that his disciples mav be u sanctified," and declares that "he 
sent them into the \vorld" as his " Father bad sent him*' 5 These 
expressions, you see, refer to a divine mission, and to inspired 
qualifications for the fulfilment of that mission. On these 
grounds, therefore, and not on the assumption of natural deity, 
our Lord himself justifies the language in which he had 
spoken of his oneness with the Father. The same thing is ma- 
nifest from the words in which he repeats his declaration, in 
the following verses, {37 and 38) ; "If I do not the works of 
my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not 
me, believe the works ; that ye may know and believe that the 
Father is in me, and I in him."' By " the Father being in 
him," and he " in the Father," Jesus must here mean the same 
thing as being one with the Father ; otherwise there is no 
force in his reply to the Jews. Now what is meant by this mav 
again be easily seen from other parts of this Gospel, where 
Jesus says to his disciples, "Abide in me, and I in youl;" — 
that is, be careful to keep 3 r ourself in union with me, by aith, 
love and obedience. Such therefore, again, if we may be aU 
lowed to receive an explanation from his own lips, was the 
oneness of our Saviour with his heavenly Father, amoral union 
of soul and purpose, not of natural power and essence. The 
same thing is manifest from the meaning of similar language 
where it occurs in other parts of Scripture* The apostle Paul 
says, that he and Apollos were "one," — usiug the very same 
form of expression as the Evangelist has recorded of Jesus. 
" I have planted " he says to the Corinthians, " Apollos 
watered; now he that planteth, and he that watereth, are one.' 9 
He also assures the Galatians that there is no longer anv dis- 
tinction of " Jew or Gentile, bond or free," for that they " are 
all one in Christ Jesus." Finally, our Lord himself prays that 
his disciples may all u be one^ even as he and the Father are 
one. In each of these cases respectively, do we not understand 
that the union spoken of is simplva union of mind, interest, and 
operation ? We only require, therefore, that all human systems 
and arbitrary suppositions should be laid aside, and that our 
Lord and his Apostles be regarded as their own sufficient 

n 3 



138 



LECTURE FIFTH. 



interpreters. Let this be done, — and the Unitarian doctrine of 
the spiritual union between the one true God, even the Father, 
and the roan Christ Jesus, in opposition to the Trinitarian 
doctrine of the two natures of Christ, will then be established 
upon the solid and only proper foundation of Scriptural 
authority. 

I am sorry, my brethren, to have detained you so long this 
evening ; but I was desirous of getting through as many ar- 
guments as possible, as I am resolved to deliver only one Lec- 
ture more. In my next and last Lecture, I shall enter into an 
examination of some charges which have been advanced by my 
opponent against the moral influences of our doctrines ; and I 
shall also examine some accusations which he has brought 
against certain eminent professors of the Unitarian faith. In 
the mean time, let me exhort you to consider these things, with 
a pure and earnest desire, through the gracious help of (Jod ? to 
tome to the knowledge of the truth. 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



COLOSSIANS, 2nd ch. and 9th v. 

" For in him dwelleth all the fulness or the 
Godhead bodily." 



In my two preceding* Lectures, my Christian friends, I 
have examined a large proportion of the arguments,— I think I 
have examined all the weighty and forcible arguments, — ad- 
vanced by my reverend opponent in his late discourses. I have 
taken notice of the principal objections which he has urged 
against my own previous arguments. I have endeavoured to 
shew that those objections are futile or inconclusive, and that 
oftentimes the assertions as to matters of fact, on which they were 
founded, are altogether incorrect. It does not appear to me 
necessary, I confess, that I should take up much more time on 
this branch of the subject. I know there were many texts 
brought forward by my opponent which I have not specially ex- 
amined. But I declare to you again, as 1 have said before, that 
the evidence supposed to be contained in them appears to me 
precisely of the same sort, as that which is supposed to exist 
in other passages which I have examined. Therefore, if my 
previous observations on such fallacious reasoning have at all 
satisfied your minds, there can be no occasion for me to examine 
more arguments of the same nature. On the other hand, if my 
former remarks have not satisfied you, it is not likely that I. 
shall now succeed by mere repetition. I shall therefore confine 
myself, in this respect, to an examination of the passage which 
I have read as my text, and then proceed at once to more gene- 
ral topics. I will examine this passage, on the principle to 
which I alluded in a former Lecture, that I would consider 
every text which I know, from experience and observation, is 
generally felt to contain a forcible argument. I will also exa- 
mine this passage because my reverend opponent has said that 
this alone ought to decide the controversy. 



140 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



" For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bo* 
dily." The word translated 4< bodily," means verily, truly, 
really. It implies reality, in opposition to mere appearance 
or pretension. I am aware, that this passage is commonly un- 
derstood as a clear declaration of the deity of Christ. I will 
endeavour to prove to you that there is no authority from the 
Scriptures for regarding the words in this light, Let us first 
look to the context. The Apostle is exhorting his readers to 
remain steadfast in the simplicity of their faith ; not to allow 
their minds to be corrupted by philosophy and vain deceit, but 
to continue " rooted and built up in Christ, established in the 
faith as they had been taught.'' He then puts forward the 
statement in the text as a reason, as a justification, for acting 
in this manner. Now, if we refer to the preceding chapter, 
which in fact is in the same connection, we shall see that the 
Apostle is there urging the same considerations; and that he 
there makes use of a similar, but not exactly the same, form of 
expression. He there says of Christ, " it pleased the Father 
that in him should all fulness dwell". Can any reasonable 
person doubt, that the (i fulness" of which the Apostle speaks 
in the text, is the same as that of which he had spoken in the 
first chapter ? The object, for which the declaration is made, 
appears to be the same in both places ; the essential parts of the 
expression, the noun and the verb, are the same, in the origin 
rial as well as in the English version. Can we doubt, then, that 
the latter is but a repetition of theformer, in order to impress 
the truth more deeply on the minds of the Colossians? It is 
a peculiarity of this writer's style, that when he has fallen upon 
a forcible and apt expression, he becomes as it were fond of it, 
and repeats it shortly afterwards, though in general with some 
slight variation. The second passage, therefore, should be 
interpreted by the help of the first. But from this considera- 
tion it will follow, that the words of the text cannot relate to 
any essential deity belonging to Christ; because in the former 
passage it is expressly affirmed that this fulness, whatever it he, 
dwells in Christ entirely through the pleasure of God, even the 
Father, as I think the meaning is justly given by our transla- 
tors : " It pleased the Father that in him should all fulness 
dwell". It is plain from this, that the fulness which dwelt in 
Christ was bestowed upon him by the Father ; there was a time 
when it did not belong to him ; he was possessed of it at length, 
only because it was the good pleasure of God that he should 
posses it, for carrying the designs of his mercy into effect. It 
is plain that such expressions could never have been used of 
any proper, essential deity, which if it had belonged to Christ 
at all, must have belonged to him from all eternity, indepen- 
dently of the will and pleasure of the Father. I conclude 
therefore, from this parallel passage, that the fulness which 
resided in Christ was not, as the Trinitarian supposes, the 
infinite, incommunicable perfection of deity, but only that 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



141 



plenitude of divine gifts and graces, which he had received of 
his heavenly Father. Still, it may possibly he thought that 
" the fulness of the Godhead, " is too strong an expression to 
imply any thing less than true and proper deity. I think it is not 
so. Let me refer you to a passage in this same writer's epistle 
to the Ephesians, (Chap. 3 v. 19) ; " to know the love of Christ, 
which passeth knowledge, that ye might he filled with all the 
fulness of God." Can it with any shew ofreason be pretended, 
that " the fulness of God" is not as strong an expression as 
" fulness of the Godhead," or " of divinity ?" Can any one 
doubt, that we have here another instance of that peculiarity 
which I have mentioned, as belonging to the style of this Apos- 
tle, — a repetition of the same favourite thought, by slightly 
varying the phraseology? It will he readily acknowledged, 
however, that "the fulness of God," for which the Apostle 
prays in behalf of the Christian believers at Ephesus, was 
riot the divine nature; it was not infinite and eternal perfec- 
tion ; it was only an abundance of divine gifts and graces. 
If we lay aside all prejudice of system, therefore, we must un- 
derstand that " fulness of the Godhead," does not mean proper 
divine nature, but it means a fulness of that wisdom and holiness 
which proceed from God, and are as it were emanations from 
his all-glorious perfection. That which the Apostle prays mag 
helong to the Ephesians, he declares does belong to Christ. 
If there were any need to strengthen this interpretation, it 
might be done hy considering, that in whatever " the fulness" 
of Christ consisted, the Scriptures declare that it might be 
communicated, and was communicated, to his disciples. In the 
very passage before us, after declaring that " in Christ dwelleth 
all the fulness of the Godhead," the writer adds, " and ye are 
complete in him." Our translators, indeed, have rendered 
the passage in such a manner as to conceal the fact, that there is 
a continuation of the same phraseology; but in the original 
this is evident ; the same words, radically, are employed, 
and the passage might perhaps be justly rendered in this 
way : — " In Christ truly dwelleth all the fulness of divinity; 
and ye also are filled by him." To the same effect are the words 
of the Apostle John, who in speaking of Jesus says, " Of his 
fulness have all we received, grace upon grace; for the Law 
was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." 
Again therefore I conclude, that in this the " fulness" of Christ 
consisted, not in the absolute perfection of deity, (of which his 
disciples could never have partaken,) but in the fulness of his 
divine endowments and qualifications for his heavenly office, 
fulness of wisdom, holiness, and favour with God. Any one 
who carefully attends to the passages, will easily perceive how 
well this sense of the words harmonizes with the general 
context. 

Before I enter, my brethren, on the important general 
considerations, with which I shall principally occupy yonr 



142 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



attention this evening", there are a few general topics of very 
inferior consequence, which it may be well to dispose of at 
once and together. My reverend opponent has interspersed 
his last discourse with many tales, concerning both the living" 
and the dead. I think it my duty to take a passing notice of 
the chief of these, in order to expose what T consider to be the 
injurious misrepresentations in which he has indulged. 

First, then, of something which he has said concerning 
myself. In setting forth w hat he is pleased to denominate 
the evil and withering influences of the Unitarian faith," 
he has thought proper to hold me up as an example of its 
sad effects. Unitarianism, he says, leads to Scepticism ; — and 
in proof of this he alludes to certain expressions which 
fell from me, when addressing you in my former course of Lec- 
tures. Now you know that Scepticism is popularly considered 
a very serious charge. When any one brings forward such a 
charge therefore, directly, personallv, against an individual 
living* in the midst of those whom he is addressing, he is bound 
to produce some very clear and substantial evidence of its truth. 
I will state to you the proof which my reverend opponent has 
produced of ray Scepticism. Having given you my opinion on 
some serious subject under consideration, on which T knew 
that others entertained a different opinion, I simply expressed 
myself in this manner : " God alone knows who is right," or, 
" God alone knows whether I am right," or in some words to 
the same effect. Therefore, savs my reverend opponent, the 
Unitarian doctrine evidently leads to scepticism, and I am an ex- 
ample of its sceptical influence ! Now T feel persuaded that any 
comment which I could offer upon this remark, might only 
tend to weaken the impression which I confess that 1 wish it 
should make on your minds. I will therefore leave it entirely 
to your own candid thoughts. I will only observe, that if my 
reverend opponent imagines I have any misgiving, any waver- 
ing, as to the truth of my Unitarian views, he is exceedingly 
mistaken. I am not able to conceive of any conviction of the 
human mind, on any moral subject, being more clear, more 
settled and determined, than is my own conviction respecting 
the sole deity of the Father, and the simple humanity of Jesus 
Christ. But at the same time I know that I am but a fallible 
creature; I shrewdly suspect that my reverend opponent may 
be no better; and therefore I am content to say that " God 
alone really knows who is right." So long as it shall please 
heaven to preserve me in the exercise of my rational faculties, 
I hope I shall never be ashamed to utter the sentiment, which 
sny opponent has thought proper to condemn as a manifest 
proof of scepticism. 

In the next place, my reverend opponent, I find, has 
directed the attention of his hearers to a passage in the " Theo- 
logical Repository," which he says was written by Dr. Priestley, 
and to another passage in the " Calm Inquiry concerning the 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



143 



Person of Christ," written by the late Mr. Belsham, in order to 
prove that Unitarianism tends to degrade the Saviour. With 
regard to the passage in the " Theological Repository," I have 
not been able to fix upon it with certainty. I hope it was 
represented by my opponent more correctly than, as T will 
hereafter shew you, he has represented another particular con- 
nected with Dr. Priestley. One act of extreme disingenuousness, 
however, on the part of my opponent, I can discover even in 
this matter. He says that Dr. Priestley wrote the passage 
alluded to under a fictitious name, being ashamed to take the 
responsibility of holding such sentiments, by publishing them 
under his real name. How then, let me ask, does my opponent 
know that Dr. Priestley was the author of that passage ? I will 
tell you how he knows it; and then you shall judge of his 
candour as a disputant. He must have learnt it from Dr. 
Priestley's own express acknowledgment , made in the pages of 
the very work from which the passage is extracted. Dr, 
Priestley therein tells the reader, that he was the author of all 
the articles to which certain signatures are attached. Is not 
this an admirable specimen of fairness ? You charge a man 
with being ashamed to publish certain sentiments under his own 
name, when the only means by which you learn that he did 
publish them, is through his own express acknowledgment, 
recorded in the same book ! 

With regard to the passage in Mr. Belsham's " Calm 
Inquiry," in which he pursues some vain speculations concern- 
ing the perfect sinlessness of Christ, I have not one word to say 
in its defence. I abandon it totally to the utmost disapprobation. 
I find it hard to conceive, that the passage can well be more 
offensive to the feelings of my opponent, or any other Trini- 
tarian, than it is to my own feelings. I hold that the perfec t 
righteousness, the spotless innocence and holiness, of our 
Saviour's character, is an undeniable and most important prin- 
ciple of the gospel. Nevertheless, having known Mr. Belsham 
well, and enjoyed his friendship during the latter part of his 
life, I feel myself bound to declare my firm conviction, I may 
say my certain knowledge, that he was a man who sincerely and 
deeply revered the character of our Lord Jesus Christ. Tn 
proof of this, I will take leave to read to you a passage from 
his own writings. It is from a sermon on " Resignation to 
the will of God, after the example of Jesus." Mr. Belsham 
says u Thei e is no history which contains such powerful 
internal evidence of its truth, as the New Testament. I do not 
give the publicans and the fishermen of Galilee credit for genius 
to delineate a more perfect character than had ever existed in 
the world, if that character had not been exhibited before their 
eyes. In the conduct of Jesus as recorded by the Evangelists, 
there is that consummate dignity, consistency , propriety, and 
excellence, all that he saith and all that he doth is so perfectly 
greeable to t ie extraordinary office which he assumes as the 



144 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



prophet of God, the promised Messiah, the re veal er of life — 

and this without one single slip or failure — that to have invented 
such a character, had it been fictitious, would have required an 
elevation of genius, and a comprehension of mind, far beyond 
what the adversaries of the Christian religion would be willing 
to allow to the plain Evangelical historians, or what the friends 
of revelation would desir e to challenge on their behalf." " The 
little incident" says Mr. Belsham, " from the narrative of which 
the text is extracted, (John xii, v. 27, 28,) is a beautiful illus- 
tration of these remarks. The Evangelist, by a concise, artless 
relation of simple facts, without any observation or comment of 
his own, has here exhibited our honored Master as a pattern of 
piety and devotion, far beyond the ordinary limits of human 
attainment ; a devotion the most affecting and sublime, and at 
the same time at an infinite remove both from the ignorance 
and folly of a mean and blind superstition, and from the wild 
ravings and the odious familiarities of a gross and fanatical 
enthusiasm. It is an incident," he continues, "which in the 
reflecting mind must excite the highest idea of our Lord's 
character, and in the pious mind an earnest desire to resemble 
it ; while the truly humble spirit will not dare to hope that it shall 
ever equal the great original." Such were Mr. Belsham's 
deliberate thoughts of the holiness and perfection of our 
Saviour's character. I say again that I will not for a moment 
defend the vain passage in the "Calm Inquiry;" but 1 have 
shewn you that the writer did look with high and solemn admi- 
ration on the character of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

Next, it appears that my reverend opponent quoted a 
passage from the Sermons of Or. Bruce, of Belfast, to shew that 
Unitarianism leads to irreverence for the authority of the 
Scriptures. Dr. Bruce is a most respectable and venerable 
man, who has been for many years a Professor in the 
Presbyterian Coliege at Belfast. He is therefore no very 
distant neighbour of my reverend opponent, and as such 
might justly look for the most charitable treatment at his 
hands. lie nevertheless represents Dr. Bruce as affirm- 
ing, that " We are not to believe, as a necessary article of faith, 
any doctrine which is not repeated four times over by the 
four Evangelists, and that we are to consider every tiring else 
in the word of God as not essential, and not to be observed." 
Now if this report of my opponent's observations which I have 
received be correct. I say that he has given a very partial and 
unfair account of Dr. Bruce's expressions, as I will convince 
you by reading the whole passage. It is from a sermon " On 
the Interpretation of the Bible." Dr. Bruce observes : — "It 
would be highly disrespectful to the Evangelists, to suppose 
that, while they recorded so many inferior incidents in the life 
of Christ, and so many subordinate points in his discourses, 
they omitted any material principle of gospel truth. To sup- 
pose, that they neglected any points essential to the salvation of 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



those churches and individuals for whom they composed their 
Gospels, would be an imputation which nothing in their charac- 
ters can warrant." Is not this a reasonable view of the subject ? 
It should be remembered that every one of the Evangelists 
wrote independently of all the others. The several Gospels 
were written at different times, in different places, and probably 
for the immediate use of different classes of people. Surely, 
then, it is not to he supposed that any one of the Evangelists 
would neglect to mention any essential point of doctrine. 
"Hence" continues Dr. Bruce, " we may deduce not onlv the 
sufficiency of Scripture in general, but also the sufficiency of 
every Evangelist separately, as to fundamentals,"— mark, as to 
fundamentals, — " for if any one of them were deficient in this 
respect, he would be exposed to all these imputations. From 
this another undeniable inference follows ; that no principle 
which cannot be clearly proved from every one of the Evan- 
gelists can be an essential article of faith ; for otherwise we 
must, suppose that some one of them has omitted an essential 
truth." Observe what is said ; that each of the four Gospels 
must be expected to contain every " essential truth," every 
" essential article of faith." I confess that I think this a rea- 
sonable principle; and I am willing, (if I may presume to say 
so,) to share with Dr. Bruce the responsibility of entertaining 
those views of the independent sufficiency of each of the Gospels 
in regard to essentials. At the same time, that Dr. Bruce does 
not think lightly of the instruction to be derived from every part: 
of Scripture, will be evident to you from his own remarks at 
the close of this very sermon. " Let me then beseech you," he*, 
says in conclusion, " to meditate day by day, and night by night r 
upon that holy book, which contains the words of eternal life,, 
all that pertains to life and godliness, having the promise both., 
of the life that now is, and the life that is to come. Respect- 
fully and gratefully receive that variety of religious knowledge, 
which is communicated in the Acts of the Apostles, and their 
Epistles; but fix upon the words of Jesus as the standard of 
your faith, the anchor of your hope, the guide and inspirer of 
your charity ; and may God grant you a right understanding ia 
all things. — Amen." 

In the last place, my reverend opponent has had the gene- 
rosity to take his hearers to the death-bed of Dr. Priestley, and 
to give a garbled account of the dying moments of that great 
and good man. He says, that shortly before Dr. Priestley 
expired, he laid his hand upon a book and said, " There is all 
my hope," or, " On that book I rest my hope." Now this book, 
says my opponent, was written by a fallible mortal, and was 
against the doctrine of future punishment. The tale is most 
incorrect and injurious. The book is not " against the doctrine 
of future punishment," but only against that tremendous doc- 
trine of eternal torments, which some of the wisest and best men, 
in all ages, and of all churches, have denied to be any doctrine 

o 



J 46 



1ECTURE SIXTH. 



of Christianity. It contains an argument against this doctrine 
drawn from the Scriptures themselves, from the revealed mercy 
of God. Neither did Dr. Priestley say any such thing, as that 
" all his hopes rested on that book." I will read to you what 
he did say; and at the same time will take the opportunity of 
stating some other particulars, connected with the death of this 
eminent professor of the Unitarian doctrine : — " On Saturday 
the 4th," observes the son and biographer of Dr. Priestley. 
" my father got up for about an hour while his bed was made. 
He said he felt more comfortable in bed than up. In the course 
of the day he expressed his gratitude in being permitted to die 
quietly in his family, without pain, with every convenience and 
comfort he could wish for. He dwelt upon the peculiarly happy 
situation in which it had pleased the Divine Being to place him. 
in life, and the great advantage he had enjoyed in the acquaint- 
ance and friendship of some of the best and wisest men in the 
age in which he lived, and the satisfaction he derived from 
having led an useful as well as a happy life." There are no 
signs here, T think, of the heart-withering influences which my 
opponent ascribes to the Unitaiian faith. There is here no 
very convincing proof that the Unitarian doctrine can afford its 
professors " no peace of mind in the present life." " On 
Sunday," continues the Memoir, " he was much weaker, and 
only sat up in an armed chair, while his bed was made. He 
desired me to read to him the eleventh chapter of John. I was 
going on to read to the end of the chapter, but he stopped me 
at the 45th verse. He dwelt for some time on the advantage he 
had derived from reading the Scriptures daily, and advised me 
to do the same ; saying, that it would prove to me as it had done 
to him, a source of the purest pleasure." This does not seem 
to shew very clearly that Unitarianism leads, as my opponent 
alleges, to irreverence for the word of God. You see what had 
been the custom of Dr. Priestley's life, and what was his advice 
to his family, in regard to the habitual perusal of the Scriptures. 
1 will now read to you what Dr. Priestley said respecting the 
hook, to which my opponent has alluded. " He desired me" 
says his son, " to reach him a pamphlet which was at his bed's 
head," " Simpson on the duration of future punishment." " It 
will be a source of satisfaction to you to read that pamphlet, " 
said he, giving it to me, " It contains my sentiments^ and a belief 
in them will be a relief to you in the most trying circumstances, 
as it has been to me." Now you perceive, my friends, that Dr. 
Priestley did not say, as my opponent has told you, that all his 
hopes rested on this book, considered as the production of a 
fallible mortal. He says, indeed, nothing at all about his hopes. 
He simply recommends a religious book to his son's perusal, 
observing that 44 it contained his sentiments," — which, consi- 
dering the nature of the book, must mean that it contained an 
exposition of his views of the paternal goodness and government 
of God, as revealed in the gospel,— and declaring that these 



1ECTURE SIXTH. 



147 



religious views bad been a support to him in the most trying: 
circumstances of his life. I ask you now, if you ever heard 
of a more ill-natured perversion of a man's dying- words, 
than has been exhibited in this instance bv my reverend 
opponent. Imagine that any one of you, my brethren, should 
in your last moments recommend some favourite religious book 
to the attention of your weeping children, as containing senti- 
ments, drawn from an exposition of Christian doctrine, which 
would support them amidst the trials of the world, as they had 
supported you. What would be your feelings, if you should 
afterwards look down from your place in the mansions of bliss, 
and behold some sectarian-minded caviller perverting this pious 
act into an evidence of your scorn for God and for religion? 
Bnt ah ! our hearts will doubtless then be wholly purified, and 
v e .-hall be enabled to look even on such a wretched display 
nt bigotry with feelings of unmingled compassion. Suffer me 
now to read to you a few more sentences from the " Memoirs of 

Dr. Priestley." — " Upon Mr. coming into his room he 

said " You see Sir T am living." Mr. observed he would 

always live. " Yes" said he " I believe I shall; and we shall 
all meet again in another and a better world." He said this 

with great animation, laying hold on Mr. 's hand in both 

his. " At prayers he had all the children brought to his bed- 
side as before. He congratulated us on the dispositions of our 
children ; said it was a satisfaction to see them likely to turn 
nut well ; and continued for some time to express his confidence 
in a happy immortality, and in a future state which would afford 
us an ample field for the exertion of our faculties." There is 
no very convincing proof here, that the Unitarian faith, as my 
opponent declares, can afford no prospect of happiness in a 
future world. " On Monday morning the 6th of February, after 
having lain perfectly still till four o'clock in the morning, he 
called to me, but in a fainter tone than usual, to give him some 
wine and tincture of bark. I asked him how he felt. He 
answered he had no pain, but appeared fainting away gradually. 
In about half an hour he desired in a faint voice that we would 
move him from the bed on which he lay to a cot, that he might 
lie with his lower limbs horizontal and his head upright. He 
died in about ten minutes after we had moved him, but breathed 
his last so easy that neither myself or my wife, who were both 
sitting close to him, perceived it at the time. He had put his 
hand to his face which prevented our observing it." Such was 
the close of Dr. Priestley's earthly career. My reverend 
opponent may not think it an unworthy employment of his time, 
to travel through the land casting false aspersions upon the 
faith and character of such a man. I would rather sav, " Mark 
the perfect man, and behold the upright ; for the eud of that 
man is peace! " 

I shall now proceed at once to the more general topics, 
with which I design to occupy your attention in this concluding 

o 2 



148 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



Lecture. My reverend opponent, in bis last discourse, ex- 
patiated at great length on what he has chosen to denominate 
the pernicious moral influences, the evil and withering 
tendencies, of the Unitarian system. 

The first topic of this kind relates to a proper reverence for 
the Holy Scriptures. You have been told that our doctrine 
leads to irreverence for the word of God. By " the word of 
God," in this accusation, is meant the written Scriptures, the 
Bible itself, considered as a book. This is entirely an ortho- 
dox perversion. You have no authority from the Bible itself, 
to denominate the written letter of the Scripture " the word of 
God." This title belongs properly to the important contents of 
the Scriptures, to the divine doctrines and precepts which they 
contain, — and of these doctrines and. precepts every individual 
believer, in Protestant Churches at least, has a right to judge 
for himself. However, there can he no doubt that a proper 
reverence for the written Scriptures, is a Christian habit of 
mind. Since we believe the Christian religion to be true and 
divine, the Bible is the most precious book in the world. It is 
the faithful record of what God has done, by especial acts of pro- 
vidence, for the salvation and happiness of his sinful creatines 
on earth. It is therefore entitled to great reverence. In this 
feeling I most cordially participate, and, both as a Christian 
and a Christian Minister, hold myself bound to give it all just 
encouragement in the minds of others. As a Unitarian Chris- 
tian, I cannot but think that T have peculiar cause to value and 
reverence the Scriptures. They are to me the only authorised 
depository of true religion. They serve me for Creed, Catechism, 
and Articles. I subscribe to them, and them alone, as my con- 
fession of faith. I look upon the Scriptures, in short, with un- 
divided reverence, as alone containing the pure word of life 
revealed from Heaven. And these, to the best of my knowledge, 
are the sentiments of all sincere Unitarians towards the Holy 
Scriptures. To what causes then can it be owing*, that we 
should be thought deficient in reverence for these sacred writings? 
I apprehend it is chiefly owing to this simple cause, that, we 
differ from certain Christians in regard to the proper method of 
shewing our reverence for the Scriptures. We think that 
others often treat these books in a manner which is directly 
calculated to sap the foundations of the authority which really 
belongs to them, by setting up false and extravagant pretensions 
concerning them, by appealing to the superstitious credulity of 
men, more than to their reason or judgment, in behalf of the Holy 
Scriptures. We therefore choose to manifest our reverence for 
the Bible in other ways. We are not in the habit of assuming, 
because we are not aware of the slightest authority for assuming, 
that every word within the covers of the Bible was written by 
men whose minds were, in various degrees, under the influence 
of divine inspiration. We are not in the habit, of assuming as 
a matter not to be inquired into, that every portion of what are 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



149 



now called the Old and New Testaments, was written by some 
inspired servant of God ; that the original text of these hooks 
lias descended to our time in a state of perfect accuracy ; that 
the common English translation of every passage is undoubtedly 
correct ; and that the vulgar interpretation of every sentence of 
Scripture is undeniably right. We search into these matters, 
and endeavour to settle our judgment, in every instance, by 
careful inquiry and sound knowledge. Are we justified in this 
method of proceeding ? or are they to be commended, who, like, 
my reverend opponent in this controversy, appeal to the blind 
superstitions of men, by telling them that what is now denomi- 
nated the Bible " is one compact production, which has the 
Holy Spirit of God for its author ?" This question can only 
be answered by considering rather more at large, on general 
principles, what are the proper methods of displaying our 
reverence for the Scriptures, 

First, then, it must surely he proper to inquire diligently into 
the genuineness and authenticity of the several books of Scripture, 
so as to form an enlightened judgment of their respective claims 
to our reverence. It seems a strange mode of shewing respect 
for these writings, blindly to take up with all that Lappens to 
be presented to us, and without a particle of knowledge, with- 
out a moment's thought or discrimination, to say, — " This I 
will reverence as the inspired word of God, every book, every 
chapter, every verse, every word of it alike." I say, this 
appears to be a strange way of shewing reverence for the 
Scriptures. It amounts, you perceive, to a perfect heed- 
lessness whether that which we receive and revere as the word 
of God be truth or imposition. Ever}' well informed Christian 
knows the true state of the case to be this, — that there is abun- 
dant evidence for the authenticity of almost all the writings 
which now comprise the volume of the New Testament. But 
he knows at the same time that there is room for discrimination, 
between the respective claims of the different books. It is 
absurd to place the same reliance, for truth of doctrine, on a 
certain phrase in the Second Epistle of Peter, as on the words 
of Jesus recorded in the undoubtedly authentic Gospel of 
Matthew. 

In the second place, it must be a proper way of shewing 
reverence for the Scriptures, to use all diligence that we may 
possess them in the most correct state, both as to the original 
text, and as to the translation. It seems, again, a strange way 
of manifesting respect for these writings, to cherish a blind 
confidence in the integrity and infallibility of all through whose 
hands they may have passed in descending to us. It is of no 
consequence, in this point of view, what opinion we entertain 
concerning the inspiration of the original Scriptures. We know 
that we do bot possess the original Scriptures. And surely all 
the transcribers, who in past ages copied these writings from 
one manuscript to another? and all the translators who have 



ISO 



LECTURE SIXTH, 



been engaged in rendering- them into our native language, were, 
not inspired, like the Evangelists or Apostles. It is very 
possible, therefore, that some errors may have crept into these 
books, as is universally known to be the case with other writings 
of equal antiquity. It is proved, indeed, to a demonstration, 
that we do possess the original Scriptures in a state of astonish- 
ing accuracy, considering all the circumstances. Jt is equally 
well known, however, that these Books have not come down to 
ns free from all errors ; and that a vast deal has been happily 
accomplished by learned men, within the last sixty or eighty 
}ears, towards correcting these errors, by consulting all the 
most ancient copies and versions of the Scriptures* It is just 
as certain, therefore, that some passages in our present editions 
of the New Testament are spurious, or corrupt, and ought to 
be amended, as it is that those editions are in the main correct. 
So likewise in regard to the translation of the Scriptures. The 
common English version is in the main a faithful and beautiful 
translation. But no man, who understands what he affirms, 
will pretend that it is a perfect, a faultless translation ; and 
since there are means of correcting it, why should not a free 
use be made of these rneatss, in the settlement of controverted 
points of doctrine? 

In the third place, it must be right, when we are satisfied 
that we have attained the best text, and the best version of the 
Scriptures, to use our utmost endeavours to interpret them 
correctly. Surely it is not the mere words, but the true sense 
of the Scriptures, that we all profess to reverence. Our best 
endeavours therefore should be employed, to ascertain this sense, 
bv availing ourselves of all the light and assistance of every 
kind that can be procured. 

These, it appears to me, my brethren, are the proper 
methods of shewing our reverence for the Scriptures. If th»*re 
be any sect of Christians who make a more consistent use 
of this kind of knowledge than others, methinks they are the 
very last people who should be charged with any want of due 
reverence for the sacred writings. I say, if there be any such 
sect; but T do not assume that there is; for I know that this 
proper treatment of the Scriptures is not confined to any one 
party of Christians. It is confined to the intelligent, sober- 
minded, and enlightened of all parties, in opposition to the ways 
of mere popular declaimers, and of those arrogant men who, 
whilst they freely criticize the Scriptures themselves, would 
presumptuously deny this liberty to others. We, as Unitarians, 
jfetand upon no different footing in this respect from other 
Christians. The whole Unitarian controversy is nothing more 
than a discussion concerning the right meaning of the Scrip- 
tures. We value and revere the Scriptures as heartily as our 
"brethren. We only wish to abide by what we consider to be 
the trms sense of the Scriptures. But prejudices are raised 
against our interpretations. It is said that we explain awaj the 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



151 



true meaning; that we cast a gloss over the obvious sense ; 
th*t we twist, and torture, and do all manner of violence to the 
language of Scripture, till we get rid of all that we disapprove. 
It is easy to give such contemptuous names to the reasoning of 
a theological opponent ; much easier, oftentimes, than to con- 
fute his reasoning. But if all men had yet learnt to use their 
own judgments in religion, as freely as they do on most other 
subjects, they would soon perceive that this again is one of the 
arts of controversy* 

I must be allowed to explain, that I consider it the best of all 
ways of shewing our reverence for the Scriptures, to read them 
seriously and habitually, wiili a view to the practical improve- 
ment of our hearts and lives. It was for this purpose more 
than any other that they were written ; it is this end more than 
any other which they are adapted to promote. And here 
permit me to observe, that in regard to this highest anil best 
use of the Scriptures, I have no objection to offer to any sober 
and reasonoble views of the assistance of God's Holy Spirit. 
I am not a reckless denier of all intercourse between the 
Father of spirits and the hearts of his pious creatures. I have 
no objection whatever to offer, therefore, against anv bumble 
and rational views of the necessity of such aid from above, in 
the moral purification of the heart and life, through the instru- 
mental use of the Scriptures. But when I see a discomfited 
polemic, struggling in vain against the arguments of his adver- 
sary, the moment he feels himself at a loss, assuming to be under 
.the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit in regard to the 
meaning of a particular passage of Scripture, — I know what to 
think of all such pretensions, and of those who make them 

The second general charge which my opponent brings 
against the Unitarian doctrine is, that it leads to Scepticism. I 
have already noticed the remarkable proof of this which he has 
drawn from my own conduct ; and I shall now dispose of the 
general topic very briefly. Scepticism, you know, is a very 
vague and sweeping charge. It may mean little or much, any 
thing or nothing. We are all Sceptics to a certain extent, — in 
regard to principles and opinions which other men believe most 
profoundly. Every Protestant is a Sceptic, in the eyes of a 
devout Cathoiic. I might plausibly represent my opponent as a 
very sceptical man, for he appears to me to doubt most unrea- 
sonably of things which to my mind areas plain in the Scriptures 
as the sun in the heavens, fie doubts whether Christ, being a 
creature, could be empowered and qualified by the Almighty 
God for the discbarge of his solemn functions, as Saviour and 
Judge of the world, — which seems to ine a. very sceptical state 
of mind. But I shall bestow on him no such denomination. 
We are all Sceptics, I say, to a certain extent ; and we are right 
in being sceptical concerning matters on which we can discern 
Do solid reasons lor believing. The only important question is, 
whether Unitarianism leads to unreasonable and groundless 



152 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



scepticism. How will it be proved that onr views have any 
such tendency ? W e certainly do hesitate to believe that Jesus 
Christ, whom God raised from the dead, is God himself ; and 
we hesitate to receive many other dogmas of the popular 
theology. But you cannot convert this into any proof of 
blameable Scepticism, without first assuming that these doc- 
trines are clearly revealed, and undeniably true; the direct 
contrary of which is plain to our judgments. 

Does my reverend opponent mean, that Unitarian views 
have any especial tendency to produce Scepticism in regard 
to the general truth of divine revelation ? This, you know, is 
what is commonly understood by the term : a Sceptic is an 
unbeliever in divine revelation. If this be the meaning of my 
opponent, I, protest against it, as alike absurd in reason, and 
false in fact; I say that, speaking of them as a body, no people 
entertain a more firm and settled conviction of the truth of 
divine revelation, than Unitarian Christians, No people have 
done their part more cheerfully, or more effectively, in main- 
taining the cause of revelation against the assaults of unbelievers. 
It is my strong persuasion, that Dr. Priestley, whom my 
opponent with a monstrous absurdity would class with Sceptics, 
did more to stem the torrent of unbelief in this country/, at a 
very critical period, than any other individual. By the influ- 
ence of his reputation as a philosopher, by his rational views of 
the doctrines of the gospel, by his many powerful writings on 
the evidences of Christianity, by his open and manly profession 
of his own faith amongst scientific men, both in this country 
and in France, he did immense service to the cause of revelation, 
when a wild and desperate infidelity, even to the awful extent 
of Atheism, was making very rapid strides in the world. I say 
again, that no man is better entitled to the gratitude of the 
Christian world, for his defence of the credibility of the gospel, 
than Dr. Lardner. I sav again, that in more recent times, when 
the Taylors and Carliles, and other such writers, have openly 
assailed the truth of Christianity, the ablest defences of revela- 
tion have been produced, not by the Clergy of the Church of 
England, but by Unitarian Ministers. We are so far from 
being rendered sceptical by our views, that we believe in the 
divine origin of Christianity the more confidently, and we are 
prepared to defend it in this enlightened age the more boldly, 
because we are convinced that it contains no doctrines at 
variance with the dictates of reason. 

But my reverend opponent, I observe, regards it as some 
evidence of our Scepticism, that we admit the innocency of 
involuntary errors of faith ; that we believe the good and pious 
of all creeds may hope to he saved. He says that this is preach- 
ing another gospel. Such may be his opinion ; but we claim 
the right to interpret the gospel for ourselves ; and we think 
this is the true doctrine of the Christian religion, true evan- 
gelical hope and piety. For myself; 1 am free to confess^ that 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



153 



I look on this as one of the most glorious principles of revealed 
truth. So far from being ashamed of this peculiarity of 
my faith, (if indeed it be a peculiarity of Unitarians, 
which I am happy in acknowledging that it is not), I can, 
earnestly assure my opponent that I prize and cherish 
this conviction beyond all which I can possibly express. [ would 
not be robbed of it for any consideralio?) ; not for the most 
accurate faith, not for the most perfect knowledge, on every 
controverted point of doctrine in the world. I do not think 
lightly of the value of correct views of religious truth, and of 
Christian truth in particular. I think them exceedingly 
important. But I know that all men are fallible in their judg- 
ment on these matters. 1 know there are a thousand sources 
of error presented to every one, by circumstances which he 
cannot govern. T believe that God, in his iniinite wisdom, has 
been pleased to make the foundations of true piety and virtue, 
in a great measure, independent of peculiar points of doctrine. 
I believe also in the infinite justice and mercy of our common 
Father in Heaven ; and therefore I am persuaded that He will 
never condemn any of his creatures to the eternal loss of his 
favour, on account of involuntary errors of faith. If this be 
Scepticism, it is to me far better than most men's implicit belief 
in their party creeds. If this be Scepticism, I trust that ] may 
live and die a happy Sceptic. 

The next genera) charge which my opponent has brought 
against the Unitarian doctrine, is, that it is a system of negatives, 
lie says that we believe little or nothing; that our svstem is 
almost entirely made up of mere negatives. What absurdities 
will not some men assert, when their judgments are blinded by 
the mists of theological prejudice ! We believe most positively, 
that there is one God of infinite perfection, who made and rules 
the Universe ; we believe positively, that His providence, and 
His lender mercies, are over all his works, so that not a sparrow 
fallelh to the ground without his notice ; we believe positively, 
that He is to be worshipped and obeyed by all his rational 
creatures, the children of men, over whom he is conducting a 
righteous moral government, which shall extend beyond this 
life and this world, even to an eternal state of retribution; ue 
believe positively, that He has at sundry times, and in divers 
manners, in addition to the ordinary course of his providence, 
interposed by wonders and signs and miracles, to promote the 
moral and spiritual salvation of men, the true record of which 
divine interposition we have in the Holy Scriptures ; we believe 
positively, that Jesus Christ was the chosen Son of God, the 
Messiah and Saviour ordained from the foundation of the 
world, who appeared in the fulness of time to put away sin, 
by his holy teaching, life and works, and benevolent sacrinee of 
himself on the cross ; we believe positively, that God raised 
him from the dead on the third day, and hath now exalted him 
to power and glory at his own right hand, for the finishing of 



154 



LECTTURE SIXTH. 



the great work of universal human redemption ; we believe 
positively, that he will in like manner raise all mankind from 
the dead, and bestow eternal life and happiness on all who shall 
then he found meet objects of the mercy of Heaven ; we believe 
positively, that the preempts and example of Jesus Christ embody 
the principles of a perfect righteousness, a perfect morality and 
piety, the practice of which is the only sure foundation of per- 
sonal and social happiness in this world, the only right 
preparation for immortal felicity hereafter. All this we believe 
most positively; and yet because we reject certain dogmas 
enshrined in antiquated creeds, we are represented by my 
opponent as having a mere system of negatives. I say again, 
what absurdities will not some men assert, when blinded by 
theological prejudices! 

But in taking" some further notice of this subject, I would 
observe that, granting our system to be remarkable for negations, 
as compared with other theological systems, the question 
whether this be a merit or demerit of Unitarian Christianity, 
depends entirely on the previous question, whether the things 
which we deny be true or false. If they be true p undoubtedly 
it is a great fault in our system to reject them ; if on the con- 
trary they be false, our rejection of them is a merit, and a 
commendation of the system which we embrace. There is no 
weight, therefore, in this mode of attack on Unitarianism, 
unless you proceed on the most unwarrantable assumptions. 
You give as an example of the negative character of our 
system, for instance, that we deny the proper deity of Christ. 
We certainly do ; but that is because we believe that no such 
doctrine is taught in the Scriptures; and you cannot fairly 
make this a reproach against us, without assuming that the 
doctrine certainly is taught in the Scriptures, which is the very 
subject of the controversy in which we are engaged. To my 
mind, there is something excessively childish in these assump- 
tions, which mark the entire course of my reverend opponent's 
argument. 

Again, you allege that we deny the Holy Ghost. It is 
not so ; — unless }'ou once more assume the truth of your 
opinions concerning the Holy Spirit, that it is a third distinct 
person of tht Godhead. We believe in the Holy Spirit as 
much as we believe in God himself, according to our view of 
the true teaching of the Scriptures respecting the Holy Spirit. 
Would you have us believe according to your views, which we 
think to be unscriptural, and false ? By this absurd method of 
argument, it would be just as reasonable in us to reproach vou 
for holding a system of posiiives ; — namely positive errors, 
positive corruptions of the pure Christian faith. Again, you 
allege that we deny the existence of the Devil : — that is another 
of our negatives. Now, I beg to remind you, my friends, that 
there is no proper connection between the Unitarian doctrine 
concerning' the person of Christ, and all denial of the existence 



I,ECTURK SIXTH. 



155 



of any such being; as the Devil. There is no reason why any 
man should not entertain both opinions, if he believes they are 
both sanctioned by the Scriptures. But ] have no wish to 
conceal the fact, that most Unitarians do deny, if not the ex- 
istence of the Devil, at all events the attributes and works 
popularly ascribed to this evil spirit. I have no fears that this 
will much longer be considered a reproach to our doctrine, in 
the minds of rational and thoughtful people. 1 would sooner 
claim it as a recommendation ; for I do believe that there is 
no more groundless, no more hurtful superstition prevailing, 
than this notion of the existence of an omnipotent, or almost 
omnipotent, malignant spirit, secretly ruling the hearts of 
God's creatures, and thwarting his merciful purposes for their 
salvation. I am quite willing to admit that this negation belongs 
to our system. 

My opponent further states, that we deny the atonement; 
that is another of our culpable negations. I have already con- 
tended, and I will ever contend, th^t we do not deny the 
atonement. The true, Scriptural doctrine of atonement, we 
believe and rejoice in. My opponent is pleased to say, indeed, 
that the reason why I do not expressly deny the doctrine, is be- 
cause T find the word in the Scriptures. Now, it is a well known 
fact, that the word "atonement" occurs but once in the whole 
New Testament; and that it is there a translation of the very 
same word which is rendered elsewhere "reconciliation." 
Surely therefore, if this were my only obstacle in the way of 
rejecting the doctrine, I should have no great difficulty in 
surmounting it, by contending that the word ought to be 
altogether expunged from the Christian Scriptures. One who 
can twist and torture the Scriptures, as my opponent says I can, 
would hardly be checked in his course, methinks, by such a 
trifling impediment as this. Moreover, if [ were so inclined, 
I could easily produce respectable authority for my opinion, 
even that of a living Bishop of the Church of England. I 
allude to Dr. Maltbv, the present Bishop of Chichester, than 
whom a more usefully learned or enlightened divine, perhaps 
never adorned the Episcopal Bench of this country. I will 
read to you his observations on this subject. I am aware that 
my reverend opponent does not wish it to be known, how often 
the authority of the ablest men in his own Church is against 
him, on these points of Scriptural criticism and interpretation; 
nevertheless, 1 do wish it to be known, and therefore I shall read 
the passage. You see, my brethren, that I am fond of quoting 
the writings of Bishops. 1 have quoted several already, and may 
do so again. I am humbly of opinion, that no body of men 
have rendered greater services to the cause of sound theology, 
and true Christian knowledge, than the Bishops of the Church 
of England. My reverend opponent " throws them overboard," 
without ceremony. I read and admire their writings, and 
endeavour to profit by their instructions. Such is the different 



156 



LECTURE SIXTH, 



treatment which Bishops meet with, from an Episcopalian 
Clergyman on the one hand, and from a Dissenting* Unitarian 
Minister on the other. " Dr. John Taylor," says the Bishop, 
" cannot imagine what should induce our translators to render 
xxTaXXtzybv by atonement, when they render the verb KotrocXXcka-aroj 
by reconcile in the foregoing* verse, and in all other places ; 
namely, tat Cor. vii. v. 11 ; 2nd Cor; v. vs. IS, 19, and 20; — 
and ycaraXXayv) in all other places by reconciliation, Romans, 
ch. xi. v. 15 ; 2nd Cor. ch. v. \s. 38 and 19." — " Archbishop 
Newcome has adopted the word " reconciliation" in his version ; 
and Dr. Hey acknowledges that it is preferable. He too pro- 
fesses himself" at a loss to see what could lead our translators 
to the word ' atonement' in this place, as ' reconciling' had 
repeatedly occurred in the preceding" verse. — (Lectures on 
Divinity, vol. 3, p. 298.) "It would undoubtedly have been 
better," continues the Bishop of Chichester, "if in Translating 
the same word, when it meant the same thing, the same English 
term had been invariably used in our version ; but in justice to 
the translators, it should be remarked that the words atone and 
atonement, according to the then usage of our language, did 
express the notions now conveyed hv reconcile, and reconcilia- 
tion" You thus perceive, my brethren, that if I wished 
to get rid of the word " atonement" from the New Testament, 
I should be able to bring very respectable authority to my 
support. But I have no such desire. Knowing as I do, that 
atonement means reconciliation, and believing as I do, that the 
great purpose for which Christ came into the world, was to 
reconcile sinners unto God, I am a firm believer in the true 
Scriptural doctrine of " A tenement by Jesus Christ." T claim 
for myself, and my fellow Unitarians, the i eputation, the merit, 
if it be a merit, of giving a most earnest and cordial reception 
to this great doctrine of the Scriptures. But let no man seek 
to impose on me his own particular views of the nature and 
method of this atonement, as of the same authority with the 
positive declarations of Holy Writ. To this I cannot succumb ; 
—against such dogmatism I must rebel. I acknowledge that 
the difference between our views, and the views which com- 
monly prevail on this subject, is very considerable, and very 
serious. Still, it is a difference of interpretation only, not of 
acknowledgment on the one side and denial on the other. The 
question is not whether there be such a doctrine in the Scrip- 
tures. I, at least, am willing to acknowledge that there is. 
The only question between us rebates to what the Scriptures 
teach concerning this atonement ; and Christians of other 
persuasions have clearly no more right to charge us with 
denying the doctrine, because our views of it differ from theirs, 
than we have to retort the charge upon them, because their 
views of it differ from ours. It will be wiser to abstain from 
all such vain and uncharitable accusations on bcth sides, 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



157 



The next general charge which my reverend opponent 
brings against the Unitarian faith, is, that it leads men to "dis- 
honour the Saviour." Now this again, as he represents it, is 
entirely an assumption of the truth of his own opinions, and the 
falsity of ours. We do endeavour to honour Jesus Christ as 
we believe he claims to be honoured, as we think we are com- 
manded to honour him in the Scriptures. The particular 
question, whether we render to Christ the honours which are 
his due, is involved in the more general question, whether the 
Trinitarian or Unitarian belief, concerning the person of Christ, 
he the true doctrine of the New Testament. We honour 
Christ as the Messiah of God, the true Christ, chosen and 
ordained before the foundation of the world, to appear as the 
Saviour of mankind from sin and death. We honour him on 
the ground of his divine mission and authority; on the ground 
of his mighty miracles, which were his credentials from the 
Almighty ^ather ; on the ground of his own perfect holiness 
and beneficence of character ; on the ground of his sufferings 
and death, voluntarily endured in obedience to the will of God, 
to complete the gracious plan of human redemption. And th@ 
way in which we honour him, is by reverently and cheerfullj 
receiving whatever he has taught us, concerning the attributes, 
the will, and purposes of his heavenly Father, concerning the 
obedience which God requires of us, and the terms on which 
we may hope for the forgiveness of sins ; by observing his 
institutions, in particular, by commemorating his death in the 
holy ordinance which he appointed, as we have done this day 
in this place; and finally, by striving to keep his moral com- 
mandments. We rely on Christ, as an all-sufficient Saviour ; 
not indeed as a vicarious substitute, who has done and endured 
every thing in our stead ; but as one who, by the divinity of 
his office, the authority of his teaching, the perfection of his 
example, the power and extent of his spiritual dominion, is 
able to save to the uttermost all that come unto him through 
faith. Tn all these respects we honour the Saviour. It is often 
said, indeed, that if we honour him at ail, it must be as a mere 
man. If it be meant, that we honour him only as we might 
honour any other wise and good man, it is wholly without truth. 
We honour Christ as we honour no other man. and no other 
being under God. We honour him as one in whom the Spirit 
of the Most High dwelt without measure; we honour him, not 
only as the self-sacrificing man of Nazareth, who bled and died, 
for our salvation, but as the best beloved Son of God, the bright- 
ness of his glory, and the express image of his all-glorious 
perfections. 

The next general charge which my opponent brings against 
the Unitarian doctrine, is indeed a very strange one. He says 
that it ''destroys the infinite character of the Father's love." 
Thisj my Christian friends, I acknowledge to be a very serious 
and awful charge. How is it to be substantiated ? How does 

p 



158 



LECTtmE SIXTH* 



the Unitarian doctrine lead to this impiety f Because, says 
my opponent, it represents God as "surrendering up only a 
finite creature" for the salvation of the world. Now, "my 
brethren, do let me entreat you to look at this objection closely. 
Be not imposed upon by words. Who but a creature, could 
ever have been delivered up to suffering and death for the sal- 
vation of men ? Or, if I must entangle myself in orthodox 
subtleties, how could Christ be thus surrendered up considered 
otherivtse than as a creature f Do you mean really and seriously 
to acknowledge it to be an article of the Trinitarian faith, that 
our Saviour, considered as God, in respect to his divine nature^ 
was crucified and slain by wicked hands F Will you make 
yourselves responsible for the introduction of such a notion into 
the fundamentals of the Christian Religion ? I give you fair 
warning, that if you do mean this, you are embracing a notion, 
from which the wise and pious of your own general creed have 
declared that they shrink with unfeigned horror* 

The plain fact is, that the accusation of my opponent 
against our doctrine, is in this case grounded on a self-evident 
fallacy ; inasmuch as it is admitted bv Trinitarians themselves, 
that, considered as God, as far as relates to his divine nature, 
Christ neither was nor could be surrendered up to any kind of 
humiliation or suffering* Remember, my brethren, that I am 
not calling in question the Scriptural doctrine, or rather the 
Scriptural sentiments, on this very interesting subject. I know 
it is written in the Scriptures, that 11 God so loved the world, as 
to give his only begotten Son, that the world through him might 
be saved*" I know that the infinite compassion of God towards 
men is set forth in the Scriptures, by declaring that " he spared 
not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." I am so 
far from denying this, that I am sensible of the greatest truth 
and beauty in these illustrations of the tender mercy of God. 
But I maintain, that their truth and beauty depend entirely on 
our regarding Christ in the Unitarian point of view, as a crea- 
ture, capable of enduring unmerited pains and injuries for the 
benefit of mankind. To my mind, these declarations of Scrip* 
ture become either gross absurdities, or empty vanities, the 
moment Christ is regarded as God, incapable of being really 
delivered up to suffering and death. You must perceive, that 
this illustration of the divine goodness is drawn, as indeed 
every such illustration must be, from analogy with human con- 
nections, and human feelings. It would be a painful sacrifice, 
and therefore a strong testimony of love, in any human parent, 
to expose his favourite, his most obedient and best beloved 
child, to great dangers and sufferings, for the benefit of all his 
other children. Therefore, the exceeding great kindness of 
God towards us sinful men, is beautifully illustrated in the 
Scriptures, by saying that God delivered up Jesus Christ, his 
most holy and best beloved Son, to suffer scorn and injury, and 
finally to be sacrificed on the cross, for our salvation/ But 



XECTURE SIXTH, 



again, I would press it upon your attention, that the truth of 
this affecting illustration of the love of God, entirely depends 
on our regarding Christ as a creature, capable of suffering and 
death. It wholly vanishes, the moment we consider Christ as 
an impassible and immutable being. 

This illustration of the mercy of God, even as it stands in 
the Scripture, is necessarily imperfect, as must be the case with, 
every illustration of infinite goodness to the minds of finite 
creatures. But as it is handled by my reverend opponent, 
it becomes positively absurd. His argument, in this instance, 
appears to rest entirely on the supposition, that we are to 
estimate the extent of God's loving kindness, not so much by the 
value of the gifts we receive, as from the sacrifice which He has; 
made in bestowing them. It would appear, I say, from the 
strain of my reverend opponent's observations, that we are to 
measure the extent of God's compassion, not so much by the 
value of his blessings to ourselves, as by what it must have cost 
him to surrender them up. What an absurd principle is this, 
by which to appreciate the ways and gifts of God ! He makes 
no sacrifice, it costs him nothing, when he freely giveth us all 
things, even his best beloved Son. To argue in this way, is to 
pervert a mere illustration employed by the sacred writers, into 
an abstract metaphysical principle, which is wholly inapplicable- 
to the divine nature. I believe, indeed, and every Unitarian, 
* believes, as devoutly as my reverend opponent, in " the infinite 
character o( the Father's love." But I trust that we build our 
faith in this most precious truth, on some more solid grounds 
than such a mere theological quidity. I read in the Scriptures, 
as I learn from the employment of my reason on the works of 
nature, that God is a most merciful Creator, Preserver, and 
Benefactor, to all creatures, giving to all life and breath and 
all things. I read in the Scriptures, moreover, that God is 
always exercising a special and paternal providence over 
mankind. I learn even more than this ; for I am taught that 
even the aggravated sinfulness of men does not shut up the 
tender mercies of God against them ; that he is graciously 
ready to pardon every penitent soul, and now, through Jesus 
Christ, has proclaimed the forgiveness of sins, and the rewards 
of everlasting life, to all who sincerely cast themselves upon 
his compassion. On these simple grounds, I believe in the 
infinite character of the Father's love. What right or reason 
have I, to suppose any limits to the goodness which hath 
wrought such wonders as these ? I find that God is revealed to 
me in the Scriptures, under the adorable name and character 
of my heavenly Father* I feel that this includes all that I 
could desire to know, or to believe, concerning the nature and 
extent of his love towards me. I behold in the ways and words 
of Christ, the clearest evidence that he was full of tenderess 
care and compassion for men. I am assured that he was the 
image of God, and did always whatsoever pleased the Father, 



160 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



In the character of Christ, therefore, I hehold a glorious mora! 
illustration of the character of God. On these simple and 
Scriptural grounds, again, I believe in the infinitude of the 
Almighty Father's love. And neither my reverend opponent, 
nor any mortal, shall shake my confidence in this heart-cheering r 
truth, by any idle talk in which be may think proper to indulge 
concerning the withering influences of my religious faith. 

In the last place, my reverend opponent lays an accusation 
against the Unitarian doctrine, that it is a cold and chilling 
system ; that it is entirely unsuited to the poor and unsophisti- 
cated part of mankind ; in short, that it can afford no peace in 
this life, and no prospect of happiness hereafter. To every 
separate count of this long indictment, I plead, in behalf of my 
Unitarian faith, Not Guilty. It ig no cold and chilling sys- 
tem, to those who receive it seriously. And what is the value 
of the Trinitarian faith, to those who do not receive it seriously ? 
But I say again, that to those who embrace it earnestly, the Uni- 
tarian faith is no cheerless and chilling system* but is full of 
heavenly light and comfort for every believing soul. This 
charge against our doctrine, indeed, is calculated to be a very 
popular one. Most men feel, much more than they think, on 
the subject of religion. When therefore they are told, that a 
system of religion has no consoling, invigorating influences on 
the heart, they are immediately apt to conclude that the essence, 
the very spirit of tree religion, must be absent from this system* 
In fact, they are perfectly right in their feeling, but wrong in 
their belief, respecting the proper tendency of Unitarian views 
of the gospel. The experience, and the solemn testimony of 
thousands, is my authority for declaring that they are wrong. 
Neither, in truth, is there the slightest degree of reasonableness 
in this prejudice of Trinitarians. Why should it be thought, 
that all the genial warmth and consolation of religion, must 
arise from the belief that there are three persons in one God ' 
or that God forgives the sins of men only on account of the in- 
finite satisfaction which has been made to his justice by the 
death of his Son ; or that countless myriads of human beings 
will finally be delivered over to everlasting torments? Why. 
should not our faith in the simple unity, the free grace, the 
impartial love, the universal, unchangeable, triumphant mercy 
ol God, be to the full as cheering and consolatory to the hearts 
of all that believe, as the melancholly system of reputed ortho- 
doxy ? It is a most absurd and groundless fancy* 

But my reverend opponent likewise alleges that the 
Unitarian doctrine is wholly unsuited to the simple and un- 
sophisticated minds of the poor, " How many of the poor,' r 
he exclaims, " embrace this doctrine ?" I answer, — Thousands, 
very many thousands of the poor have embraced, and do still 
embrace this doctrine ; and let me tell my reverend opponent, 
that thousands more would embrace it, if he, and such as he, 
did. not constantly impose on the credulity of the simple-mindei 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



161 



poor, by giving false representations of the Unitarian doctrine ; 
if he, and such as he, did not employ all their influence, 
personal and clerical, to fright the poor from attending to a 
doctrine which they are told is a damnable heresy. 1 could 
tell vou many authentic stories, my brethren, (and some of no 
very distant date), which would go far to account for the fact, 
that the poor do not more readily and openly profess the Uni- 
tarian doctrines. But I say, that the fact itself is by no means 
so general, as my opponent would represent. I, at least, have 
always found the poor, the serious, honest, thoughtful poor, 
amongst the very host of Unitarians, the most consistent in their 
profession, and evidently deriving the greatest benefit from the 
cheering influences of their faith. I say this without meaning 
any disparagement to the rich, who when they abide firmly by 
this unpopular doctrine, notwithstanding the unpleasantness to 
which it often exposes them in the world) are entitled to much 
commendation. But I repeat it, that I have generally found 
the virtuous and pious poor, best prepared to enjoy the good 
influences of a simple faith in the unity and paternity of God. 
How can it be otherwise? What does a poor man require of 
his religion? What kind of a religion is it which he in 
particular needs, to meet his peculiar condition ? I take it that 
a poor man's religion should be a plain religion, one which, in 
all its great essential articles, lies within the grasp of his own 
plain understanding; which does not require to be nicely 
explained to him by his priest, lest he should believe, that three 
eternals are two more than one eternal, and thereupon " without 
doubt perish everlastingly." I say that a poor man's best 
religion must be emphatically a plain, simple, reasonable 
religion; otherwise it cannot, in truth, be his religion; it 
cannot be the sincere, rational belief of his own mind ; it is 
merely the religion of another man, in the truth of which he is 
taught that he must implicitly confide. Can it then be pretended 
for a moment, that there is in this respect any comparison to be 
made between the Athanasian creed and the Scriptures ? "There 
is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the 
man Christ Jesus." Impossible ! the latter is the only 
suitable faith for the poor; as they will be brought to 
understand, in God's own time and manner. Again, I main- 
tain that a poor man's religion should be one which most clearly, 
most largely, and most consistently reveals to his mind the in- 
finite, paternal compassion of God, as the impartial Father of 
all mankind. The poor man needs to be cheered and consoled, 
under the many privations and difficulties to which his earthly 
lot exposes him. I contend that he will find this consolation, 
abundantly, in Unitarian views of the providence, government, 
and final purposes of God, as revealed in the gospel. Our 
faith is incumbered with no subtleties on this subject, any more 
than on the subject of the nature of God. We see nothing in 
the Scriptures about the infinite difficulty of reconciling the 

p 3 



162 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



mercy with the justice of God. We find him uniformly repre- 
sented there, as the Father of mercies, ever ready to exercise 
compassion towards all who seek it. We believe that his re- 
deeming; love is co-extensive with his creating and preserving 1 
goodness. Under the influence of such a faith, the poor man 
can look up to Heaven, through all the clouds and mists of 
earth, and drink in hope, and consolation, and joy, from the 
beams of his Father's countenance. 

But I might appeal to facts on this point. I might confute my 
reverend opponent's insinuations by facts. If time permitted, 
or circumstances demanded it, I could easily give you some 
authentic instances of the profession of Unitarianism by the 
poor, which I doubt not would greatly surprise some of you. I 
can tell my reverend opponent, that if he had extended his 
polemical pilgrimage a little farther to the West, he would have 
found, not fifty miles from this place, in the town of Devonport, 
a Unitarian Congregation to the number of more than three 
hundred, consisting entirely of the poorer classes of society,— 
consisting, I believe without a single exception, of men who 
earn their daily bread by their daily toil;— who without any as- 
sistance from others, by serious inquiry and the study of the 
Scriptures, have wrought their own way out of the darkness and 
perplexity of the orthodox creed, to a firm persuasion of the 
Unitarian faith ;— who with their own hands have raised their 
own place of worship, and with their own hearts and tongues 
have carried on the public worship of the God and Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, according to the dictates of their consciences, 
many wishing but none being able to make them afraid;— who 
for many years, in the- midst of unexampled difficulties and 
obstacles, have stood firm in the profession of the Unitarian 
doctrine, — and in the course of these years, have experienced at 
least all the ordinary calamities of human life, have witnessed 
distress and affliction in all its shifting forms, have seen their 
parents, husbands, wives and children, become the victims of 
disease and death, and resign their spirits into the hands of God, 
under the influence of a pure Unitarian faith. Now I propose 
to my reverend opponent, if he really desires to know the truth, 
that instead of travelling about from city to city, dealing out 
his uncharitable tales against us and our doctrine, he should pay 
a friendly visit to this Unitarian congregation ; and if amongst 
these three hundred poor, he should find one who does not 
willingly testify, with heart and soul, to the cheering and con- 
solatory influence of our simple faith, I am willing that my 
reverend opponent shall have all the benefit of this fact in his next 
controversial discourses. 

My opponent finally declares, that the Unitarian doctrine can 
give no peace of mind in this world, nor any sure hope of hap- 
piness hereafter. How does he know this ? Has he ever been 
a Unitarian ? Has he ever had to struggle through all the na- 
tural trials, sorrows, and calamities of life, with the bigoted 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



163 



slanders of his fellow Christians to boot, having this simple faith 
alone to sustain him ? Never. How, then, does he venture so 
confidently to pronounce judgment against a faith, which he has 
never experienced, and which, be it remembered, can in every 
particular be fully set forth in the words of Jesus Christ, or of 
his inspired apostles ? But I know that it is not so. I know 
that this accusation against our faith is as false and groundless, 
as all the others which have been advanced. I grant, indeed, 
that our views of the gospel do not minister to any selfish, 
bigoted, conceited fancies, of an exclusive interest in the favour 
of God. But I know that the Unitarian faith affords the most 
enlarged views of the infinite, paternal goodness of God J that he 
Watches in tender mercy over all bis mortal and dependent 
creatures, that " whom he loveth he ehasteneth," that his 
severest dispensations are all ordered in wisdom and compassion, 
and that under his supreme, universal government, all things are 
Working together for good to them that love him and keep his 
commandments. Let no man tell me, that these simple, glorious 
views of the attributes and ways of God, can afford no true peace 
of mind in this world, unless joined to the peculiar dogmas of the 
Trinitarian creed. I contradict that man most positively \ 1 say 
that he is grievously mistaken on this subject; and it is a case, 
in which I am better entitled to be believed than he is. I know 
that he is in error. I knoiv that the holiest peace of mind, and 
the purest consolation, may flow from the Unitarian faith, in full 
free, and exhaustless streams. 

My reverend opponent declares, to crown all his other 
awful accusations, that the Unitarian faith gives no hope, no 
prospect, of eternal happiness hereafter. Ah ! there are 
thousands of faithful hearts that could teach him otherwise, if 
he were not so fondly wedded to his own sectarian fancies, that 
no testimony can shake him. I demand again, that my own 
testimony, the testimony of my own observation and experience, 
shall be received in this case, (which is more a question of 
fact than of opinion), in oppposition to the testimony of a man 
who has probably had no experience whatever on the subject* 
Tt is not as he represents* Why should it he so ? The sources 
of our consolation in the hour of death, are precisely those 
which are opened to all believing souls in the gospel, precisely 
those which supported the mind of the Apostle Paul, when he 
felt that his earthly end Was approaching* "I have fought a 
good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith * 
henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, 
which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day ; 
and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appear* 
Ing." Mark, my brethren, the benovolence of the Apostle, in 
the utterance of these glowing sentiments ! " Not to me onty s 
but unto all them also that love his appearing," This is true 
Christian faith, hope, and charity. This is the very spirit of 
the gospel, embracing the prospect not merely of our own 



164 



LECTURE SIXTH. 



eternal happiness, but that of all who love God and the Lord 
Jesus Christ in sincerity. Oh these, and not on any narrower 
grounds, is the Unitarian's hope of eternal felicity established. 
We believe in the forgiving mercy of God to all repentant 
sinners. We believe in the great doctrine of immortality, 
founded on our Saviour's promises and resurrection. YVe 
believe that he hath entered, through the veil of the flesh, into 
the holy of holies, even into Heaven itself, whither he is gone to 
prepare a place, in the mansions of his Father's house, for all 
who sincerely obey him. We believe that " Henceforth blessed 
are the dead that die in the Lord ; even so saith the spirit of 
eternal truth, for they rest from their labours, and their works 
do follow them." We believe that they will dwell together for 
ever, in the more immediate presence of God, whose smile is 
everlasting joy. These are the hopes which deprive death of its 
sting, and the grave of its victory. With these divine principles 
of faith and consolation deeply rooted in the heart, shedding 
their peaceful influence over every troubled scene of life, and the 
light of immortalitv over the dark valley of the shadow of 
death, the sincere Unitarian believer can die, as I have shewn 
you that the calumniated Priestley died, in charity with all men, 
full of confidence towards God, " in the sure and certain hope 
of a resurrection to eternal life." 

It were pleasant enough for me, my brethren, to dwell 
longer on these lopics. But I must now bring this controversy 
to a close. In prosecuting this argument, it has been necessary, 
for me, in justice to myself, to my fellow Unitarians, and to 
the great principles which we espouse, to utter my mind in. 
plainness and firmness of speech But I have endeavoured to 
do so in a spirit of charity and respect towards all who are of 
a different persuasion. I throw myself on the candour of my 
Trinitarian hearers, if I have appeared to them to represent 
their views in anv way unjustlv, or unfairly. I beg to assure you, 
however, in conclusion, that whatever T have said, has not 
appeared to me wrong, but right ; and that if I had known, 
in any instance, that I was giving an erroneous or unfair 
statement, either of the principles or of the arguments of 
Trinitarians, that consciousness should immediately have sealed 
my lips. Let us now withdraw to our respective churches and 
avocations, in peace and love towards one another. We muse 
all have one object at heart, — to learn the truth as it is in Jesus, 
that this truth may make us free, wise, and happy. It is our 
duty to search for this truth, with humble and teachable disposi- 
tions, and with prayer to Almighty God, that he will be pleased 
to guide us to the knowledge of all necessary truth, and give that 
truth power to sanctify us, and to bless us everlastingly ! Amen. 



T. BESLEY, PRINTER, NORTH-STREET, EXETER 



I 




VINDICATION 

OF THE 

UNITARIAN DOCTRINE 

CONCERNING THE 

SOLE DEITY OF THE GOD AND FATHER OF OUR 
LORD JESUS CHRIST: 

BEING 

SIX LECTURES, 

DELIVERED IN 

GEORGE'S CHAPEL, EXETER, 

DURING THE MONTHS OF AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER, 1835 ; 
IN RESLY TO 

The Rev. DANIEL BAGOT, M. A. 



By the Rev. HENRY ACTON. 



REVISED FROM THE SHORT-HAND WRITER S NOTES. 



LONDON*. PUBLISHED BY R. HUNTER.- ST. PAUl's CHURCH - 
y^rd; and SOLD BY T. BALLE, HIGH-STREET, and t. 
BESLEY, NORTH-STREET, EXETER J CURTIS, PLYMOUTH J 
BROWNE, BRISTOL J FORREST AND FOGG, MANCHESTER J, 
ROBINSON, LEEDS; AND ALL OTHER BOOKSELLERS. 



EXETER. 

PRINTED BY T. BESLEY, 89, NORTH STREET.. 

188$, 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 

Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 




PfT" 




